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

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 28th Sunday of Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2006

Even as I prepared breakfast one day for my friend and recent guest Fr. GW of MN, he pointed out an error in my Latin version of the Super Oblata for the 26th Week. I transcribed “...per ea nobis fons omnis benedictionis aperiatur”, instead of “per eam…”, which refers back to the feminine oblatio. So, dig out that article from your pile of WDTPRS clippings and pen in the correction. My error in the Latin, however, does not make a difference to my translation, which was accurate. Remember, folks, WDTPRS is more than just a good source for breakfast conversation.

A notice in the German language Kathpress-Tagesdienst (Nr. 230 – Sunday, 1 October 2006) reports that Viennese professor of Church History Rupert Klieber stated that, “In the debate over the Christian roots of Europe we theologians today must be one thing above all else: a good translator.” His point is that the Church has a magnificent treasure to share with the world. It must be shared in a way that is appropriate to a modern context. Otherwise, the Church runs the risk of receding into a ghetto. What the Church has to give to the world must be inculturated. This WDTPRS series aims at opening up more of the actual content of the Church’s liturgical prayers through accurate translation. This is also the goal of Liturgiam authenticam (LA) from the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments. Remember that LA was fifth instruction “for the right implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy of the Second Vatican Council”. The fourth instruction in 1994 was called Varietates legitimae which was about inculturation in the liturgy. Translation and inculturation are inextricably woven together. This is part of what makes translating ancient Latin prayers into Modern English so very difficult. We must always make sure that the translated prayers are not in language so remote from the listener that their content fades into obscurity. At the same time, the translations must not be rooted in the passing fads of daily speech.

Fr. Anonymous sent a note expressing a measure of pessimism about a future reception of the new translation on the some priests. Here are his comments (edited heavily to protect the innocent): “I just finished up with the annual (clergy meeting) in my diocese. Me and my big mouth! I talked to a few of my brother priests of the ‘older generation’ who did not seem one bit pleased about the forthcoming new and improved translations of the Roman Missal. In fact, this issue is such a deep wound for some of these gentlemen, that they remained visibly shaken, angry, and cold toward me throughout the days of our conference because of my enthusiasm and support for the new translations.” Right, Fr. Anon., I know exactly what you mean. I too have been treated like a slug on a sidewalk by men of that same “generation”. These aging hippies are toting more baggage than the Titanic ever did.

Fr. Anon. elaborates: “An older priest mentioned that the current response ‘And also with you’ is a much more ‘natural’ response to the greeting ‘The Lord be with you.’ I interjected: ‘Had not people already been trained to say ‘And with your spirit’ from about 1965 thru about 1972, and that the English translation had been in fact CHANGED in about 1973 to what it is now.’ He was not impressed with that insight. At the time I didn’t think to mention that since dialog in the Mass comes forth from a formal act of DIVINE Worship of Jesus Christ we ought to consider something not necessarily ‘natural’ but maybe ‘supernatural’ (e.g. ‘And with your spirit’); but I did not say it at the time, which was probably just as well.” Yes, Father, but he wouldn’t have been convinced even had you managed to levitate as you said it.

Father “Anonymous” continued: “Honestly what I described frightens me. I wonder whether some clergy or groups might just outright refuse to use the new translation. Will the Church experience the ‘shoe on the other foot’? Will we have a ‘Society of Archbishop Bugnini’ demanding an indult for the use of the 1973 ICEL translations because of their ‘attachment’ to that particular usage? God help us!” Don’t be despondent Fr. Anonymous. The next time you are with these folks, just remind them that, unless they hurry, we will be compelled to use the new translation for their funerals. “Society of Archbishop Bugnini”! Good one! I was about to quip something about imagining what their liturgies would be like, but on further reflection most of you don’t need to imagine. Or want to.

Imagine now that we finally get around to this Sunday’s “Prayer over the gifts”. This was the Secret of the 1962MR’s Tuesday in the Octave of Easter and the Fifth Sunday after Easter and it remains for the Seventh Sunday of Easter in the Novus Ordo. However, in most places we now have Ascension Thursday Sunday on the Seventh Sunday of Easter, so I guess most people won’t be hearing it more than once a year.

SUPER OBLATA (2002MR):
Suscipe, Domine,
fidelium preces cum oblationibus hostiarum,
ut, per haec piae devotionis officia,
ad caelestem gloriam transeamus.

The sound of those a’s with m’s in the last line invoke wonder. The end has a delightful cadence: trans-e-á-mus.

We dealt with officium last week, so I refer you to that article. The monumental Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary shows that transeo means “to go over or across, to cross over, pass over, pass by, pass; be changed into any thing.” Pius means something closer to “dutiful”, in regard to us, and “merciful” in regard to God. We have also studied gloria many times. Latin gloria (translating Greek doxa and Hebrew kabod) is a divine characteristic. St. Hilary of Poitiers (+367) taught that gloria or claritas is a transforming power God will share with us. When God shares His divine splendor with us, we will through eternity be transformed and “divinized”, always shining more and more brilliantly as God’s reflections, His images, forever becoming more and more like Him.

The L&S says devotio comes from the verb devoveo meaning, “to vow, devote (usually to a deity)” and such things as “to promise solemnly” and “to devote to the infernal gods, i. e. to curse, to execrate” and thus, “to bewitch by conjurations”. In a more Christian sense someone who is devotus “is pious, devout” or “obedient to authority.” The adverb devote is in Adoro Te devote, the familiar hymn of St. Thomas Aquinas (+1274): “I adore/worship You faithfully/devotedly”. Devotio, then, has similar meanings including “a devoting, consecrating” and “featly, allegiance, devotedness”.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
Take up, O Lord,
the prayers of the faithful with offerings of sacrificial victims
so that, through these services of dutiful devotedness,
we may pass over unto heavenly glory.

In 1985 the Association for English Worship (AEW) made a booklet with some possible translations, comparing them to the ICEL version. For the most part the AEW provides a …

SMOOTHER VERSION:
Lord, with this sacrificial offering
receive the prayers of the faithful,
so that through this act of worship and devotion
we may be drawn towards the glory of heaven.

We must linger over the fascinating word devotio. In ancient Christian Latin devotio can understood in many ways, such as Abraham’s willingness to sacrifice his only son Isaac (cf. Ambrose, Hex 5, 21, 66), an interior faith expressed outwardly even unto martyrdom (cf. Cyprian ep. 55, 11), a seasonal fast or liturgical action (cf. Gelasian and Veronese Sacramentaries), among others. Centuries later St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologiae describes devotio as an “active” virtue. In regard to meditation and contemplation the Angelic Doctor wrote: “The intrinsic or human cause of devotion is contemplation or meditation. Devotion is an act of the will by which a man promptly gives himself to the service of God. Every act of the will proceeds from some consideration of the intellect, since the object of the will is a known good; or as Augustine says, willing proceeds from understanding. Consequently, meditation is the cause of devotion since through meditation man conceives the idea of giving himself to the service of God” (STh II-II 82, 3 ). A few more centuries later devotio is developed in Jesuit spirituality: devotio refers to our duty. Our devotions must lead or help the soul to keep the commandments of God and the duties of one’s state of life, one’s vocation, before all else. Each of us has a God-given vocation to follow. We must be devoted to that state in life and the duties that come with it as they are in the hic et nunc, the “here and now”.

A person must not focus on the state he had in the past, or wishes he had, or should have had, or might yet have someday. Those are unreal and misleading fantasies that distract us from reality and God’s will. When I am truly devotus in fulfilling the duties of my state as it truly is here and now, then God will give me every actual grace I need to fulfill my vocation because I am fulfilling my proper role in His great plan. Thus devotio makes each of us actively receptive to what God wills and gives, no matter what it is.

This is a key to understanding our roles, especially of lay people, in the sacred action of the liturgy. True “active participation” is first and foremost interior active receptivity. Can you see the connection between your “pious devotions” and your being devout in devotio? With this virtue in place we are made authentic “collaborators of God” (1 Cor 3:9; cf. 2 Cor 6:1-2). As devout Catholic we go into the world bringing our own part of God’s plan for the salvation of all to fruition in everything we say and do. All that we do is transformed.

Today’s prayer recognizes our deep and unavoidable obligation before God, our sacred duty. As His people we are capable of receiving a share of God’s transforming glory. Remember that transeo can mean also “be changed into something”. The word devotio invokes an entire world view. The virtue of devotio leads us always to say, with the Baptist, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (John 3:30 RSV). Our lives must be evaluated in light of our obligations under God’s plan and providence. Our prayer, then, firmly expresses the nature of the relationship we have with God. We are not equals. We rely on him totally and every good thing we have comes to us from on high. If we faithfully fulfill our God-given duty, He will share with us His own transforming glory for eternity.

Here is how the St. Andrew Bible Missal (1962) rendered this prayer: “Lord, accept the prayers of the faithful with the offering of sacrifice. While we pay you our duty of loving devotion, may we gain the glory of heaven.” All in all that is pretty good, even though it splits the sentence. I wonder if we will find the same content in the lame-duck version from…

ICEL (1973 translation of the 1970MR):
Lord,
accept the prayers and gifts
we offer in faith and love.
May this eucharist bring us
to your glory.

What Does the Prayer Really Say? 18th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2002

It is time again for some of your feedback. RG of IA writes via snail-mail: “I’m sending this via “snail-mail”, as you referred to the time-honored postal system in your July 4 column. This subtle (albeit trite) reference causes continued financial stress for my son. He is a rural mail carrier for the U.S. Poster System…. Mail box bombs, anthrax scares, and 110 miles of gravel roads are burdens enough.” RG… I fully accept your expression of concern for your son. I would respond to what you wrote. First, the epithet “snail-mail” did not originate with me or my columns: this term has been around for a long time. Also, I sincerely do not think that “snail-mail” is derogatory. Considering the speed of electronic mail, or e-mail, everything else other than telepathy or divine locutions, move pretty slowly. Second, I have a high sense of admiration for the efforts of letter carriers. This is an ancient and honorable profession. The ancient Romans made great use of the services of the tabellarius who also made his appointed rounds. Third, it is interesting to see how the methods of communication in our modern world are simultaneously reflecting who we are and how we talk to each other as well as shaping the same. There is a great deal to be said for the written word… written in the sense of ink on paper or incisions on surfaces. There is something elegant and personal about the material offerings of written words. The pre-recorded “You have mail” file on your computer may amuse, but it cannot satisfy the sense like the sight and feeling of the cool and smooth written envelope, with its stamps, return address, and extension in space as it is held in the hand. At any rate, RG, there is nothing derogatory about the term “snail-mail.”
We continue this week in our project to inspire you to write elegantly crafted “snail-mail” to the members of the Vox Clara (VC) committee established to work with the Congregation for Divine Worship (CDW) and ICEL in the rapid and proper development of new English language liturgical translations as well as revision of existing translations according to the norms established in the CDW’s document Liturgiam authenticam (LA). We should be willing to express encouragement concerning their challenging work. Here is the next pair of addresses, which bring us now to a total of 6 of the 12.

His Excellency
Most Reverend Justin F. Rigali
Archbishop of St. Louis
4445 Lindell Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63108-2497 USA
(Website: http://www.archstl.org)

His Excellency
Most Reverend Oscar H. Lipscomb
Archbishop of Mobile
P.O. Box 1966
400 Government St.
Mobile, AL 36633 USA
(Website: http://rcamobile.org/)

Be sure to keep your letter brief and kind, reassuring the bishop of your prayers and hopes for improved and faithful translations. We must always be keenly aware of the extremely difficult vocation that bishops are charged with. Do not seek to contribute to their burden by bitterness in this important matter: be positive and hopeful.

SUPER OBLATA:
LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Propitius, Domine, quaesumus, haec dona sanctifica,
et, hostiae spiritalis oblatione suscepta,
nosmetipsos tibi perfice munus aeternum.

This week’s Super Oblata prayer, called also the “Prayer over the gifts”, was in the 1962MR as the secret of Monday within the Octave of Pentecost. Take note, Latin students, of the ablative absolute hostiae spiritalis oblatione suscepta.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
In your mercy, we beseech you, O Lord, sanctify these gifts
and, as the offering of this spiritual sacrifice is received,
perfect us ourselves into an eternal offering worthy of you.

You might remember that we something quite similar not too long ago in the super oblata of Trinity Sunday (which is very close to the traditional Roman calendar’s Monday in the Octave of Pentecost): Sanctifica, quaesumus, Domine Deus noster, per tui nominis invocationem, haec munera nostrae servitutis, et per ea nosmetipsos tibi perfice munus aeternum.

Most of the vocabulary of this prayer is straightforward and common in liturgical contexts. We might review, through our consultation of the never-dusty Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary, the finer points of perfice which is an imperative of perficio. Perficio, perfeci, perfectum is the source of the English word “perfect”. It means fundamentally, “to achieve, execute, carry out, accomplish, perform, dispatch, bring to an end or conclusion, finish, complete.” Thus it is “to make perfect’ and also “to bring about, to cause, effect; with ut.” Having an imperative form in the prayer, it means “to achieve, execute, carry out, accomplish, perform, dispatch, bring to an end or conclusion, finish, complete.” While it is acceptable for us to say “make us an eternal offering” it would be nice to bring along more of the impact of perficio’s “completing” and “perfecting” sense. In a way, that nosmetipsos emphasizes this. The enclitic –met can be added to pronouns for a measure of emphasis: nosmet: “we ourselves”.

The vocabulary of this prayer reminds me of a passage in the New Testament:

Rid yourselves, therefore, of all malice and all guile, insincerity, envy, and all slander. Like newborn infants, long for the pure, spiritual milk, so that by it you may grow into salvation – if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is good. Come to him, a living stone, though rejected by mortals yet chosen and precious in God’s sight, and like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house, to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ…. (domus spiritalis sacerdotium sanctum offerre spiritales hostias acceptabiles Deo per Iesum Christum) 1 Peter 2:1-5

 

This passage is found in the context of a series of imperatives presented to Christians for the sake of their new life and new identity. The first imperative (1 Peter 1:13) is a command to live in hope of the coming of Christ. The second (v. 15) is to live a holy life in the midst of the world. The third (v. 17) is for the Christian to have the proper fear of God rather than of prevailing things of the world. The fourth (v. 22) is that is proper love of others. The fifth (1 Peter 2:1-10) concerns how we are to long for spiritual nourishment so that we can mature in our Christian lives and vocations. We find here images of human growth, as in infants being fed on milk so they can grow into adulthood, and the building up of a dwelling… and not just a dwelling, but a “spiritual dwelling/house”, or a “temple”, and thence into a priesthood. This is a fundamental element of Christian life: it stresses the communal dimension so critical to authentic Christianity as opposed to the “me and Jesus” attitude of some evangelical and fundamentalist “Bible Christians”. Though all these images of our passage are simultaneously express different angles of the same body of Christ, the Church, we see a logical movement from growth as an individual (infant) to a community (temples are for groups, not merely individuals) into a priesthood (integrating the action of the community of Persons, the Trinity).

His Eminence Josef Card. Ratzinger, in his wonderful book A New Song For The Lord: Faith in Christ and Liturgy Today (Crossroad Publishing Company, 1996) presents a reflection on the imagery of “living stones” which, though applied in his book mainly to seminary formation and priesthood, nevertheless is applicable to every Catholic in every walk of life, particularly today. His Eminence writes:

The goal is the house; what precedes it are the stones – living stones in the case of a living house. The fact that our verse talks about building in the passive voice is part of this: Like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house. Our thirst for action requires that we translate such words without exception into the active voice: Let us build the kingdom of God, the Church, new society, and so forth. The New Testament sees our role differently. The construction manager is God or the Holy Spirit. We are the stones – for us building means being built. An old liturgical hymn for the construction of a church describes this graphically; it speaks of the blows of the curative chisel, the thorough treatment with the master’s hammer, and the right assembly of the pieces through which the blocks of stone finally grow together into the great building of Jerusalem. This touches on something very important: building means to be built. If we want to become a house, we – each and every one of us – must accept the fate of being cut and carved. (pp. 163-164)

 

Perhaps we can hear our prayer now and hear some new things. First, given our current contemporary context wherein we are awaiting the preparation of new and better liturgical translations, we Catholics yearn for good and rich nourishment so that we, as individuals and as a Church, can deepen our relationship with Christ and thereby make our proper contributions to the world around us. In the liturgy we receive “pure, spiritual milk” and more. Personally, I want more than the non-fat or 2% we have been given so far in our translations. Second, no matter what we think of the translations, we are still receiving an inestimable gift in Holy Mass. We ought to strive to live up to what Christ Himself imposes on us all: “So when you are offering your gift at the altar, if you remember that your brother or sister has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled and then come offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24)

We must offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God.”

“If we want to become a house, we – each and every one of us – must accept the fate of being cut and carved.”

ICEL:
Merciful Lord,
make holy these gifts,
and let our spiritual sacrifice
make us an everlasting gift to you.

The Vatican Basilica has another special today, for Bl. Pope Eugene, III.  Who was this fellow?

Bernardo dei Paganelli di Montemagno was from Pisa.  He was a pupil of St. Bernard of Clairvaux and the Abbot of a Cistercian monastery near Rome.  He was elected Pope in 1145.  Due to revolts in Rome, he was unable to live in the City.  He was for a time in Viterbo, where there is a fabulous papal palace you can visit (I know a good restaurant nearby) and then at Siena.  Then, alas, he went to France.

When Edessa fell to the Turks with the help of St. Bernard he called for a new Crusade.

Eugene was a reformer as well, focusing on the clerical life.  He approved the visionary works of the famous St. Hildegard of Bingen. Eventually, with the help of the King of Sicily, entered Rome for a time, but then had to flee again.  He died in Tivoli on 8 July 1153. 

While Eugene III always had political problems with the City of Rome, he didn’t not have difficulty with his spiritual rule in his role as Vicar of Christ.  Therefore, after his death, he was buried in the Vatican Basilica, and miraculous cures began at his tomb.  He was beatified by Bl. Pius IX in 1872.

Today in the Vatican Basilica his Mass is celebrated using the Common for Pastors – Visitabo with the following

COLLECT
Domine Deus noster,
qui Beatum Eugenium e coenobii solitudine
ad Petri Cathedram,
ut fratres suos in fide confirmaret, vocasti:
eius precibus concede,
ut Ecclesia tua firmiter supra Petram,
qui Christus est, solidata iugiter perseveret.

LITERAL VERSION
O Lord our God,
who called Blessed Eugene from the solitude of the monastery
to the Cathedra of Peter
in order that he strengthen his brethren,
grant by means of his prayers,
that Your Church, who is Christ, may always persevere
firmly established upon the Rock.

There are some interesting things going on here.  First, note the play between Petrus and Petra... Peter and "Rocky". 

Second, notice that there is a reference to Christ’s words to Peter that when he would come to his senses, after denying Him three times (cf. Luke 22:32).  This is the reference you will find in papal documents that contain definitive or infallible teachings.  "Confirming the brethren" is a specific Christ conferred and indispensbile dimension of the Petrine ministry and the very fabric of the Church.

Third, notice how the prayer identifies the Church with Christ.  It does not identify Christ with the Church!  Yes, the Church is Christ!  We must never reduce Christ to the Church.  Christ is much larger than His Church!

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  13th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2002

I am sure all of you were riveted either to the TV or the computer display watching the live transmission of the US bishops’ meeting in Dallas.  The event is too recent for me to express calmly what I thought of it.  There was an interesting development liturgically during their Mass on Friday evening.  For the Mass they used texts which they called a “Mass for the Gift of Tears”.  TS wrote by e-mail and alerted me to the fact that the bishops put the texts for this “Mass for the Gift of Tears” on the conference’s website (http://www.usccb.org/comm/weblit.htm).  On that website you can read all the texts together with this footnote:

PLEASE NOTE: The Mass for Tears is included among the Masses for the Forgiveness of Sins in the recently revised Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia. This English language translation has been approved at the request of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments for this specific occasion. The translation is copyright 2002 by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, all rights reserved.

Instantly I consulted the index of the Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia for the originals and found them on page 1140 under the section called Missae et orationes pro variis necessitatibus vel ad diversa, III. Ad diversa, 38. Pro remissione peccatorum, B, Aliae orationes.  The “A” section has the full Mass “For Remission/Forgiveness of Sins” while the “B” section has alternate prayers for just the collecta, superoblata, and post communionem that can be substituted in to that Mass.  The “B” prayers lack a distinguishing title such as “Pro dona lacrimarum” or something similar.  We ought to look at the Latin for the super oblata of that Mass in the 2002MR and compare it with the conference’s translation, approved by the CDW and transmitted live to a watching world.  Given the fact that the bishops were taken were rebuked for bad translations they had offered to Rome for approval, in a way this might be a foretaste of translations they will present in the future.  What did the bishops prepare “for this specific occasion”?

SUPER OBLATA (Missa pro remissione peccatorum – B)
Hanc oblationem, quaesumus, Domine
quam maiestati tuae pro peccatis nostris offerimus,
propitius respice et praesta,
ut sacrificium ex quo hominibus profluit fons veniae
Sancti Spiritus gratiam lacrimas effundendi
pro nostris offensionibus largiatur.

The collect and super oblata in the “B” section, which interests us today, are in the main taken from the good old Mass Ad petendam compunctionem cordis (“For begging compunction of heart”) in the Orationes diversae section of the 1962MR.  The collect is identical in every respect right down to the long extinct colon and semicolon punctuation (clearly an editing oversight in the production of this new 2002MR).  They changed the super oblata to: Hanc oblationem, quaesumus, Domine Deus, quam tuae maiestati pro peccatis nostris offerimus, propitius respice: et produc de oculis nostris lacrimarum flumina, quibus debita flamminarum incendia valeamus exstinguere… “Graciously look, O Lord God, upon this offering, we beg Thee, which we are offering to Thy majesty for our sins: and draw forth from our eyes a river of tears, by which we may be able to extinguish the merited conflagration of the flames.”   Too much hellfire for our kinder and gentler century, I guess.   

USCCB translation approved by the CDW – as it appears on the USCCB website
We ask you to look with favor upon these gifts, O Lord,
the Gifts and receive our offering
to your sovereign majesty on account of our sins,
that this sacrifice from which pardon flows
as from a fountain
may bestow by your Holy Spirit
the gift of tears for our offenses.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Yes, that is really how it appears on the website…including that obvious error “We ask you to look with favor upon these gifts, O Lord, the Gifts…” and the misspelling “soverign”.  However, I think we must give them the benefit of the doubt and recall that this conference meeting was cobbled together under great pressure and at great speed.  Also, a website page isn’t the same as a printed book.  Clearly what happened is that the poor worker-bee putting this page together simply made some mistakes.  (Hmmm…in the spirit of the way the bishops are now viewing priests, perhaps that website worker-bee should be instantly fired and never permitted to create a web page again?  But I digress….)   But, let us not conclude that bishops share responsibility for their official texts that are found on their official website.  Let the worker-bee take the full blame. We can now make the proper corrections: “We ask you to look with favor upon these gifts, O Lord, and receive our offering….”

All in all, this is a very good effort!  It is markedly better than what was prepared in the past. I wondered at first if maybe they simply didn’t have the time to produce something goofy, I but I like to give everyone the benefit of good will. “Sovereign majesty”!  Can you believe it?  It’s so triumphal!   We get “sacrifice” for sacrificium too, and even an old-fashioned “bestow.”  Has the translator has been reading WDTPRS or even Liturgiam authenticam?  Still  (and you know I can’t help it), maybe there are a few things that aren’t quite right.  For example… for hanc oblationem, which is singular, they write “these gifts” in the plural.  Okay, I know you will say that the singular “offering” is actually comprised of two elements, bread and wine.  That gets a pass.  Look closely at the phrase “this sacrifice from which pardon flows” which translates sacrificium ex quo hominibus (to men) profluit fons veniae.  Something’s missing.  What could it be?   Inclusive language was a bone of contention with ICEL, the bishops and the CDW.  So, in this super-charged atmosphere of the bishops’ meeting, when they already had enough problems without making the feminists angrier than they normally are, they side-stepped the landmine and left “men” (or even “humans”) out completely.  So far, they have a plural for a singular and they left out a landmine.  What about that phrase (it doesn’t appear in the other prayers for this Mass, only in the super oblata) from which the Mass, as the bishops labeled it, got its title “Gift of tears”?  In the Latin we have gratia lacrimas effundendi… “the grace of shedding tears” (recall that, as advertised above, this was originally in the 1962MR a “river of tears” we must beg in order to avoid the flames of eternal damnation).  Perhaps we can defend this in that the Holy Spirit, to whom we refer in that same sentence, gives this grace as a gift.  However, the Latin in fact has gratia and not donum, or similar.  Consider how the previous translations, being used now, systematically and obviously avoid using the English word “grace”. I am a bit suspicious.  Maybe they were keying into a phrase that is idiomatic in English: “gift of tears”.   For example, those familiar with liberation theology, et al., might recall a revisionist book by Daniel Berrigan entitled Isaiah: Spirit of Courage, Gift of Tears.  (Fortress Press, 1996) Nevertheless, that change from “grace” to “gift” is, in my opinion, a flaw in an otherwise excellent translation. 

If this is a sample of what we have to look forward to, I think we have real cause for hope.  I compliment the bishops on their good choices and thank them for the encouraging demonstration of what can be accomplished.

SUPER OBLATA:
LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):
Deus, qui mysteriorum tuorum
dignanter operaris effectus,
praesta, quaesumus,
ut sacris apta muneribus fiant nostra servitia.

ICEL:
Lord God,
through your sacraments
you give us the power of your grace.
May this eucharist
help us to serve you faithfully.

Does the prayer really say this?  We need to look into its vocabulary with our terrific Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary in order to crack this tricky nut…but, I’ve run out of space for this week.  Sorry.  We have room only to note that the noun servitium, as an abstraction, points to the condition of being a servant or slave (servitude).  In the concrete it means “a body of servants, the class of slaves.”  In this prayer we find nostra servitia.   L&S tells us that Livy (2, 10, 8) uses the plural servitia for “servants as individuals” as if it were servi, “slaves.”  I think we can find an analogy in addressing a bishop as “Your Excellency” whereas a servant might be “Your Servitude.”  In Judith 3:6 we read in the Latin Vulgate: “Veni nobis pacificus dominus et utere servitia nostra sicut placuerit tibi… Come to us, peaceful lord, and use us slaves as it will have pleased you” (and Holofernes came and destroyed their shrines) or in Tobit 9:3 we find servitia as “bond” which is a kind of pledge or bail bond, probably given to keep servants. So, in this prayer we have a puzzle. As nostra servitia could be “we servants” we would be asking God to make us ourselves apta.  If we say something like “our service” or even something like “us servants together with the fruits of our service” we might be able to get at the depth of the word servitia.  Seeing as I have written about aptus in the past, dear reader, you can tell me if you think sacris muneribus is dative or ablative.  For this week, I’ll choose dative.

LITERAL TRANSLATION:
O God, who graciously produce the effects
of your sacraments,
grant, we beseech Thee,
that our servitude may be made well-suited for these sacrificial gifts.

ICEL:
Lord God,
through your sacraments
you give us the power of your grace.
May this eucharist
help us to serve you faithfully.

What Does the Prayer Really Say?  11^th Sunday in Ordinary Time

ORIGINALLY PRINTED IN The Wanderer in 2002
 

The lamentations continue.  As one could have easily predicted, the reactions to the Congregation for Divine Worship’s (CDW) Liturgiam authenticam (LA), which establishes norms for vernacular translations of the Latin Rite’s liturgy, have been both mixed and strong.  While many have been elated and have praised this development, there are others who have moaned that it does more harm than good.  For example, offering little cause for surprise the National Catholic Reporter has both an editorial in their 24 May 2002 edition, as well as an article by their nearly ubiquitous and well-informed Rome correspondent John L. Allen, Jr., that LA is killing ecumenism.  The editorial trumpets, “Alarms sound over latest blow to ecumenism.”   Apparently Horace Allen, a Presbyterian liturgist and member of the group called Consultation for Common Texts (a forum for ecumenical cooperation on liturgical translation comprised of 21 different Christian groups, including the U.S. bishops’ conference, the Canadian bishops’ conference, and the International Commission on English in the Liturgy) has opined that “the entire ecumenical liturgical conversation and dialogue is over—finished, dead, done.” 

Some Catholics do not know that there exists something called the Revised Common Lectionary containing readings from Sacred Scriptures for Sunday worship.  It was published in 1992 by the above-mentioned Consultation on Common Texts.  It was based on the 1969 Lectionary used by Catholics and differs from it only in readings from the Old Testament used after Pentecost.  Perhaps 70 percent of Protestant churches in the English-speaking world use this lectionary.  Some people see this common lectionary as being important for the ecumenical movement since Catholics and many Protestants often have the same readings on the same Sundays.  Now we hear that the Holy See has put a stake through the heart of ecumenism with the hammer of LA, which requires more accurate translations of texts used in the liturgy, including Scripture.  It is a little hard for me to see precisely what the problem is since we will be using the same verses on Sundays just as before.  The translation will eventually change in time, but…there it is.   In any event, the NCR continues its hysterical denunciations of LA referring even to the “Vatican march to undo liturgical reform that had begun to take hold during the past three decades.” 

Apparently what has been going on for the last few decades was actually healthy.  However, the myopic mandarins of Holy See never allowed the ever-more fruitful movement of liturgical reform to mature.  As a result, “those most deeply engaged in liturgical reform and translation issues had to spend most of their time in recent years fending off attacks from curial officials appointed during this papal regime” (Emphasis added).   I don’t think anyone will disagree with that summary.  Who will deny that they were fending off the Holy See. 

Must one surmise that insisting that liturgical norms be followed and that both consultation and permissions be obtained before experimentation and adaptation take place ad libitum actually constitute an “attack” on the part of Apostolic “regime”?   Who is attacking whom? The NCR’s John Allen, who – say what you will about the NCR itself – is a darn good reporter, wound up his coverage of this with how Horace Allen said he had visited St. Peter’s Basilica, had seen the body of Blessed John XXIII, and then complained that “His body is on display, and his council is in ruins.” 

I disagree.  I think the implementation of what the Council offered regarding worship was miserably hijacked, and it is “in ruins” from that point of view only.  I don’t think that we have had something marvelous and wonderful after the Council, because we haven’t been given the chance to have what the Council asked for.  To claim that the Holy See has treacherously begun to raze to the ground all the great things going on is absurd.  LA is, in my opinion, a concrete step toward the proper implementation of the Second Vatican Council’s mandates for the liturgy.  It is not a step backward.

SUPER OBLATA: LATIN (2002 Missale Romanum):

Deus, qui humani generis utramque substantiam
praesentium munerum et alimento vegetas et renovas sacramento,
tribue, quaesumus, ut eorum
et corporibus nostris subsidium non desit et mentibus.

This was the secret of the prayers Pro defensione ab hostibus…For defense against enemies in the 1962MR found in the Orationes diversae which could be added according to the rubrics after the other required proper prayers for the day.  I also found this in the prayer In tempore famis… In time of hunger. 

LITERAL TRANSLATION:

O God, who the two-fold substance of human kind
both quicken by the nourishment of the present gifts and renew by sacrament,
grant, we beg, that their support not be lacking to both our bodies and our minds.

ICEL:
Lord God,
in this bread and wine
you give us food for body and spirit.
May the eucharist renew our strength
and bring us health of mind and body.

We turn now to our weighty Lewis & Short Dictionary for some help with a few words and find right away that the verb vegeto means “to arouse, enliven, quicken, animate, invigorate.”  Think of the different kinds of living beings with bodies that there are (remember, angels are alive too, but they don’t have bodies): vegetative, animal and human.  This word seems to be used mostly in later Latin, for the references we find in L&S are from the Christian poet Prudentius and from the Latin Vulgate.  The noun subsidium stands in the first dictionary entry for the third line of troops, also called triarii, held in reserve during a battle behind the principes.    As a result this technical military term also means “support, assistance, aid, help, protection.”  You can see from these two words how the content of this super oblata was appropriate for i