Tinkeritis: Screwing around with, screwing up, liturgical translations

Christine Mohrmann

You may have heard that there is an initiative underway to “review” or “study” vernacular translations of the texts of Mass and the norms according to which they are to be prepared as given in Liturgiam authenticam.   This would be nuts, of course, and, hence, I think they will do it.   Tinkeritis is rampant these days.  This is one reason why the older, traditional form of the Roman Rite must be expanded as much as humanly possible.

I suspect that, while this “study” initiative is an attack on the norms of LA and the translations it has already produced, it’s really an attack on Pope Benedict’s determination that all vernacular translations of the consecration for the Precious Blood had to say “for many” for Latin pro multis.

We Catholics ought to believe that, while Christ died for all, not all will be saved.  Some will not be saved.  Apart from that, pro multis in Latin means “for many” and not “for all”.  Spectacular and risible philological fan dances have been done in the past to force “multis” to mean something that it has never meant in the history of the Latin language.  This will return in spades now.  If the attack on LA goes forward, and I think it will, it may result not in a total overturning of the present translation.  Rather, even more options will be introduced: alternative translations, the option to say “for all” rather than “for many”.   As you have already figured out, this will produce even more confusion and disunity than there is now… among Catholics, that is.

It might make what liberal priests do more promote unity with the teachings you hear in Protestant churches, although they might express them better.

Over at Mutual Enrichment, Fr. John Hunwicke has rightly invoked the name of the great scholar Christine Mohrmann.   She demonstrated that the Latin used for liturgical worship in the early Church was not the lowest common denominator speech of the man on the street.  Rather, it is stylized and elevated.

For 12 years I wrote a weekly column for The Wanderer in which I drilled into the translations of the orations of Holy Mass both before and after the introduction of the current ICEL version.  Week after week I showed how the Latin reflected technical terminology and specialized vocabulary (i.e., military, agricultural, mercantile) and concepts from Neo-Platonic and Stoic philosophy.  The man in the street would have had to stretch for the content, much as these days Joe Bagofdonuts would have to work hard to follow the first scenes of a play by Shakespeare.   Mind you, Shakespeare is not out of reach!  Most people these days must stretch.  However, the unaccustomed ear eventually adjusts to the Shakespearean sound, especially when the novice is at the play and not just listening to a recording.  With repetition, it becomes easier and you become – let it be said – smarter.   The same applies to liturgical language: it must not be pedestrian.  Our faith is shaped by how we pray.

We must resist every effort to make our faith ambiguous, indifferent and dumb.

Fr Hunwicke has a good post.  Check it out HERE.


About Fr. John Zuhlsdorf

Fr. Z is the guy who runs this blog. o{]:¬)
This entry was posted in Liturgy Science Theatre 3000, Mail from priests, New Translation, Pò sì jiù, PRO MULTIS, WDTPRS and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.


  1. pattif says:

    It is my humble and,therefore correct, opinion that when people complain about the new translation of the Missal, what they are really complaining about is what the Latin text actually says. In many places this was pretty effectively obscured by the dreadful earlier translation, but now it is right back there in their faces. I think what they particularly dislike is being forced to address Almighty God as if he were worthy of deference.

  2. rtjl says:

    When I first heard this news my heart sank. The first sense of dread I felt was over the translation of the Mass. The new translation is so obviously better than the previous one. I would hate to have to return so something similar to what we had knowing now that we can have better. I suppose it’s an open question whether we would see yet another translation of the Mass. But the second sense of dread I experienced was with respect to the new translation of the Divine Office that is currently underway. I was so looking forward to it. My fear now, is that the reconsideration of LA and practices around liturgical translation will almost certainly derail that and we will be stuck with the current translation or receive something even worse.

  3. iPadre says:

    I fear that after destroying the new translation on, they will move to force major changes on or suppress the EF.

  4. Michael says:

    Regardless of what happens to the vernacular translations of the Ordinary Form (Although I hope they do not go through with this), can’t one just use the O.F. Missale Romanum (2015 edition….the latest), exclusively?


    …..and just say, “Screw those watered down translations”….and offer all parish OF Masses in Latin? Lib Bishops might be in upheaval, but at least you are offering the post-Vt.II Mass of Paul VI, so they can’t attack you for disobedience. Of course the readings, gospel, homily, and prayers of the faithful will remain in vernacular (e.g. Sacramentum Caritatis 62) but at least the text of the Holy Mass will be as authentic as possible.

    Lastly, in regards to rtjl on the Divine Office, no matter how bad or good the new translation will be, just use the Latin version. You can never go wrong with that:
    *Note: This newer version is even updated with the canonized saints of the past decade, and it has the psalms in double-columns!

  5. Kerry says:

    “2 + 2 = 4”.

  6. Kerry says:

    “Hell is to suffer one’s own will forever”, -Boethius

  7. Ted says:

    If anyone is interested in getting a reprint of Mohrmann’s classic lectures on liturgical Latin, here is an inexpensive source:

  8. Henry Edwards says:

    Evidently the translation issue is still pending for those languages whose translations have not yet been revised in accordance with Liturgiam Authenticam.

    But I wonder whether a reconsideration of LA would have any significant effect in the U.S. Obviously, the zeal for a pidgin-english translation remains unabated in certain remote quarters. However, it’s my impression that our bishops and the U.S. faithful as a whole are reasonably happy with the 2011 English translation and, at any rate, the widespread discontent that was predicted has not materialized. (For my part, I’ve never heard a single criticism of it voiced by any priest or layman I know.) That being the case, are the U.S. bishops likely to have any stomach for reopening the liturgy wars that took so long to settle?

  9. scotus says:

    When the new translation came in churches had to get rid of their old Missals and so did members of the laity, if they wanted to keep up-to-date. That maybe wasn’t too much of a loss as the books had been used for quite a number of years. But if we have a new, new translation the financial loss will be considerable on books that have only been used for a few years. That may not be the most important factor to bear in mind but for parishes, and individuals, who are not financially well-off it won’t be very welcome.

  10. Absit invidia says:

    Whatever happened to “don’t fix it if it a’int broke?”

  11. Absit invidia says:

    What I am noticing is that every time a small step is taken towards modernism at a high level, here in local regions bishops and priests decide to up the ante and go even further to liturgically introduce/reintroduce MORE zany and goofy practices; sometimes replacing liturgical traditions altogether with bizarre novelties.

  12. VeritasVereVincet says:

    Christ died for all
    pro multis in Latin means “for many”

    And that’s where I and others get stuck. To us, if Christ’s blood was shed for all, we naturally shouldn’t be saying or implying it wasn’t. And “for many” absolutely does imply “not for all”, regardless of any reason given for interpreting it as implying exactly the opposite.

    If I can’t have “for all”, which is dogmatically correct and unambiguously non-Calvinistic even if it’s not a perfectly literal translation of pro multis (I also firmly disagree it implies all men will be saved), and I can’t have “pro omnibus”, which is the obvious solution, then I would rejoice greatly in the addition of a definite article, i.e. “for the many.”

  13. The Professor says:

    scotus, I completely agree!

    I will admit that I wasn’t that fond of many of the translation changes introduced in 2011. (For example, the second Eucharistic Prayer is quite clunky and “sing-songy” in its sentence structure: Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray…” Also, the collects often suffer from this clunkiness and lack of sentence flow.) However, I am more than accustomed to them now and would not welcome yet another change. As you mentioned, purely for practical reasons, this makes no sense with the money and resources that were put forth into printing new missals and adapting the new translations to music only a few years ago. Further, I think most of us who attend the ordinary form are more than used to the new translations at this point. In my circles, I never have heard anyone calling for a return to the older translation, at least this many years later.

  14. St. Irenaeus says:

    Pope Benedict sent this letter to the German Bishops in 2012 addressing the question:


    Too much that’s too good to quote selections.

  15. “Divide et impera.” Let us labor, suffer, and pray for Tradition: “A capite ad calcem.”

  16. joekstl says:

    Perfect. You most adequately address the opposition. Thank you.

  17. Nota bene: Exerceas te Latine. Intelligis quod dico? Oportet sedulo nos exercere.

  18. rwj says:

    It seem like after the coming of Francis, it was more like the coming of a new political administration than a continuation of the Petrine office. So much playing in the sandbox.

    Grow up! Distortion of Christ’s words won’t force anyone to be saved., married, or in Communion with God, or a state of Grace: it contribute to the contrary.

    Strangely enough, if the mass is retranslated every few years, it will provide a largest back-door argument against mass in the vernacular- since we are not responsible enough to handle it.

  19. Joe in Canada says:

    I suspect that part of the plan is to let each episcopal conference do what it wants, without any involvement by Rome. Canada will go back to “for all”, and we’ll lose “ineffable” and “consubstantial”. We might go back to “and also with you”.

  20. Rouxfus says:

    “Our faith is shaped by how we prayed.”

    An ancient understanding… lex orandi, lex credendi — the law of what must be prayed is the law of what must be believed. [Fr. Hesse’s translation.]

  21. Grant M says:

    In the Indonesian rite it’s still “for all”, and probably will remain so.

  22. JabbaPapa says:

    She demonstrated that the Latin used for liturgical worship in the early Church was not the lowest common denominator speech of the man on the street. Rather, it is stylized and elevated.

    Much like the Latin of the Vulgate — which is Late Latin, not colloquial nor Classical. There’s an interesting stylistic variation in the translation style of St Jerome and his team of translators — the more literary or conceptually complex texts of the Bible are translated in a style closer to that of Classical Latin, whereas the “easier” texts or those more appropriate for public readings to a mixed audience are in a style closer to the popular vernacular ; but always according to the proper grammatical norms of the 5th century language.

  23. JabbaPapa says:

    VeritasVereVincet :

    If I can’t have “for all”, which is dogmatically correct and unambiguously non-Calvinistic even if it’s not a perfectly literal translation of pro multis (I also firmly disagree it implies all men will be saved), and I can’t have “pro omnibus”, which is the obvious solution, then I would rejoice greatly in the addition of a definite article, i.e. “for the many.”

    If it were just the Latin, I think “for the many” would be the more literal translation — but, as Pope Benedict XVI so brilliantly demonstrated, there’s also the Greek to consider, and the only possible translation coherent with both the Latin AND the Greek is “for many”.

    And no, I don’t think that “for all” is “dogmatically correct”.

  24. JARay says:

    Yes, Christ died for all, but all will not avail themselves of what that death brought. Many will. Many will not.

  25. JimGB says:

    Some of the priests in my parish continue to ad lib parts of the Eucharistic Prayer, although they never alter the words of consecration. But all of the homilies that I hear at Mass have a consistent theme: that Jesus died to save everyone and because of that, everyone will be saved.

  26. Henry Edwards says:

    The alleged membership of this new translation commission has been published HERE. The list of names includes a well-known liturgist now serving as titular Archbishop of Martiriano, but also prominent supporters of the fine new English translation—Ab. Arthur Roche (chairman of the new ICEL), Bp. Arthur Serratelli (U.S. rep and strong advocate of reverent liturgy), and Fr. Jeremy Driscoll (who as consultant to Vox Clara played a leading role in its adoption).

  27. MarylandBill says:

    If we must have yet another translation, maybe we should follow the Ordinariates and elevate the language. Of course, going back to Latin would be nice too :).

  28. ajf1984 says:

    As that great, somewhat irascible humanist, Dr. Leonard H. McCoy, once opined, “I know engineers, they LOVE to change things!” Replace “engineers” with “liturgists,” and we have a perfect explanation for this current commission, not to mention the issues with the Mass (excuse me, the liturgical celebration). Why leave something alone when we can tinker with it? Oy…

  29. Henry Edwards says:

    “Pope Francis once said that when someone does not want to accomplish something, he establishes a commission.”

    Hope springs eternal in the human breast.

  30. @JabbaPapa speaking to VeritasVereVincet: Jabba Papa is correct in his latter statement if you even glance at the scriptural context. And when you consider the theology, then you wind up with a correct understanding of the distinction between efficacious grace (an idea that Calvin swiped from us, who first received it from the context of Jesus’ words and actions) and sufficient grace.

  31. Imrahil says:

    On the same topic:

    1. it is wrong false that “for many” implies “not for all”. It means “many”; and maybe it also means, in English, “many, and we do specifically do not say it applies to all”; but not “many, and we also say to some it applies not”.

    Sometimes it serves to look at what words literally mean. Likewise, “until” does not imply “afterwards the contrary”; hence, “but Joseph knew her not [carnally] until she had born her Son”, and the famous counterproof against Protestant false interpretations of this Bible verse, that our Lord also said: “I shall be with you for all days until the end of the world”, but He will not leave us after the end of the world.

    2. JabbaPapa correctly points out that “for the many” would be a correct translation from the Latin, per se, but not from the Greek context of the Gospels because Greek does have a definite article which lacks here.

    3. He is incorrect in questioning the orthodoxy of “for all”. It is dogma that Christ did not only die for the predestined; it it sententia certa that He did in fact die for all human beings whomsoever [personal note: possibly excepting those before His time who shut themselves to Grace so much that they never had grace in their lifetime?].

    That is unless he means, not the phrase as it stands, but the motive of replacing it.

    4. The Tridentine Catechism says “for all” means at least among other things that the effects of our Lord’s Sacrifice do not necessarily come to all. This is, in any case, a truth. (Whether they come necessarily to not all is a quite different question, though some places in Scripture, such as a verse about Antichrist in the Apocalypse, do point in the direction that the number of those its effect does not come to will be strictly greater than zero.)

    Whether now the Tridentine Catechism speaks of this as about some right thing that has been associated with the words, or about something they really were intended to mean in their origin, is not (in my opinion) of faith-related importance; some also have interpreted “for many” to refer to the partaking of the Sacrament (which is certainly also a truth: not all that Christ died for partake of the Sacrament).

  32. @Kerry: I too love Boethius. He is especially great as St. Thomas Aquinas throws light on him (via commentary, or his use of quotations). I especially enjoy the Aquinas exposition “on the Hebdomads”. The beginning of chapter one, where Thomas begins his commentary, is especially wonderful to ponder. In brief: “Striving for Wisdom possesses this peculiar advantage: In doing her work she is more than sufficient to herself . . . the delight of contemplating Wisdom has within itself the cause of delight; hence one suffers no anxiety, as if awaiting something that might be lacking (cf. Sapientiae [Wisdom] 8:16).”

  33. bobk says:

    I can’t speak at all about Latin, I know zero. But Shakespeare, check out *any* edition. In 100 lines, there are often 110 footnotes translating the language. It’s just not English as we know it.

    [Wellll… yes, it is. It is Early Modern English. That said, it is also Early Modern English. There are lot of archaic words and some variances in syntax. Note in Shakespeare are generally useful for identifying odd vocabulary or allusions. My experience is that people’s ears adjust to the language, even if they don’t catch everything.]

  34. JabbaPapa says:

    Pope Benedict XVI :

    Once again, though, we ask: why “for many”? Did the Lord not die for all? The fact that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God, is the man for all men, the new Adam, is one of the fundamental convictions of our faith. Let me recall just three Scriptural texts on the subject: God “did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all”, as Paul says in the Letter to the Romans (8:32). “One has died for all,” as he says in the Second Letter to the Corinthians concerning Jesus’ death (5:14). Jesus “gave himself as a ransom for all,” as we read in the First Letter to Timothy (2:6). So the question arises once more: if this is so clear, why do we say “for many” in the Eucharistic Prayer? Well, the Church has taken this formula from the institution narratives of the New Testament. She says these words out of deference for Jesus’ own words, in order to remain literally faithful to him. Respect for the words of Jesus himself is the reason for the formulation of the Eucharistic Prayer. But then we ask: why did Jesus say this? The reason is that in this way Jesus enables people to recognize him as the Suffering Servant of Is 53, he reveals himself as the figure to whom the prophecy refers. The Church’s respect for the words of Jesus, Jesus’ fidelity to the words of “Scripture”: this double fidelity is the concrete reason for the formulation “for many”. In this chain of respectful fidelity, we too take our place with a literal translation of the words of Scripture.

    Just as we saw earlier that the “for you” of the Luke-Paul tradition does not restrict but rather makes concrete, so now we recognize that the dialectic “many” – “all” has a meaning of its own. “All” concerns the ontological plane – the life and ministry of Jesus embraces the whole of humanity: past, present and future. But specifically, historically, in the concrete community of those who celebrate the Eucharist, he comes only to “many”. So here we see a threefold meaning of the relationship between “many” and “all”. Firstly, for us who are invited to sit at his table, it means surprise, joy and thankfulness that he has called me, that I can be with him and come to know him. “Thank the Lord that in his grace he has called me into his Church.” Secondly, this brings with it a certain responsibility. How the Lord in his own way reaches the others – “all” – ultimately remains his mystery. But without doubt it is a responsibility to be directly called to his table, so that I hear the words “for you” – he suffered for me. The many bear responsibility for all. The community of the many must be the lamp on the lamp-stand, a city on the hilltop, yeast for all. This is a vocation that affects each one of us individually, quite personally. The many, that is to say, we ourselves, must be conscious of our mission of responsibility towards the whole. Finally, a third aspect comes into play. In today’s society we often feel that we are not “many”, but rather few – a small remnant becoming smaller all the time. But no – we are “many”: “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no man could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and tongues,”, as we read in the Revelation of Saint John (7:9). We are many and we stand for all. So the words “many” and “all” go together and are intertwined with responsibility and promise.

    It is NEVER “orthodox” to “edit” the direct Word of God.

  35. Imrahil says:

    Dear JabbaPapa,

    It is NEVER “orthodox” to “edit” the direct Word of God.

    Yes, it might be. Depends of the intent. So, I could imagine somewhom preaching around the promise of the Holy Spirit in John 16. He might say, paraphrasing, “the Spirit of the Father, who proceeds from the Father and the Son”. It would in most circumstances be imprudent; he makes himself refutable. But, if it clearly is recognizable as a paraphrase and not as what literally stands there, it would not be unorthodox, which is the point here. And if he said, “the Spirit of the Father, who proceeds from the Father – and as some have misunderstood the phrase, let it be noted here: and of course also from the Son, as is clear from the context of the phrase”, it would not even be imprudent.

    Likewise, who said the Bible said Christ died for all at this specific point, would be unorthodox. Who only says “Christ died for all”, however, is not – that is in fact Catholic teaching.

  36. JabbaPapa says:

    Imrahil, you’re confusing a valid interpretation of “pro multis” for what it means as such.

  37. I have not slept (“been able to sleep” to the point of not even bothering to lie down for three days now) for a while, and so I am a bit fuzzy on some of the details here in this post. The gist that I get is that some people what the bring the, shall we say–speaking for them, somewhat archaic language of the Mass and other liturgical prayers down to the level of “The Message Remix Contemporary [teenage] Language [lingo] Bible”. Here is my comment:

    When we enter into the Mass we enter through the porta caeli (gate of Heaven) and the language that we use should be at least one multiverse away from our work-a-day language, even to the point where common prayers are in Latin: the fact of their being common prayers meaning that we will come, in time, to grasp the mystery that the “strange words express. Also, the language of liturgy should always reflect sound theology of the sacred mysteries over and above correct grammar.

  38. Semper Gumby says:

    Lucas Whittaker: I can empathize with your sleeping difficulties- went through a spell of that myself a few years ago. The following might help, and I’m really not trying to crack a joke here. Visit your local used-book store and find an economics book written around the mid-20th century (writing styles were more ponderous back then). I selected a history of the 19th century European coal industry. It didn’t work immediately, but gradually had its effect. The Rosary may also work.

    p.s. Overseas a while back on some military adventure, there was an occasion where we had 30-90 minutes of sleep a night for several nights. It really cannot be sustained.

  39. Semper Gumby: Thank you! My story is long and winding, and would best be shared over a coffee in one of those cozy leather chairs that many coffee shops have (although I do not know whether or not Starbucks has them because I refrain from even using their loo). I live in St. Paul. But, for the first time in many years I hope to make it down to Alabama in July. If you are somewhere between here and there I would be happy to give to you the Reader’s Digest version of my story. It is of interest, per related topics, that the Navy learned that their S.E.A.L.S. could not go for more than 3 nights without sleep, and thus are not pushed beyond that limit. There have been a number of occasions that I spent more than 7 nights not only awake, but moving around/working. I think that the SEALS began to have negative mental effects from more loss of sleep. My often-longer periods without sleep could help some of you who might question my comments to understand that my brain is simply not functioning properly :D Anyhow, God willing, I head out around July 16th: Back after the 24th. Please do let me know. BTW: I like your recommendation, but I am currently working hard to learn Latin well, and also working on Thomas’s philosophical works. While I LOVE them, they are enough to make your head spin. Still, I am often awake. My basic battle plan is to simply keep putting one foot in front of the other as I strive to follow the Bridegroom (cf. Canticum Canticorum 1:4). Bene vale

  40. Semper Gumby says:

    Lucas Whittaker: Happy to help. If I may add, you mention that Latin and Aquinas can make your head spin. That happens. Evening reading could be something lighter, perhaps also a little Mozart or Gregorian chant.

    As several autobiographies and documentaries have mentioned there are military units that work almost strictly at night and sleep as best they can during the day. By the way, those Seals are crazy, good lads all, but their lives are way too exciting for me. I don’t want to presume your situation but I’m guessing when you write that you spend “more than 7 nights” awake you sleep during the day. By the way, your comments are fine.

    Yep, I’m not a fan of Starbucks either. Around the office here summer is our busy time. Last year I was travelling from June to almost October. But, as they say in baseball there’s always next year.

  41. Semper Gumby, Regarding my comments: Thank you. When I have spent seven nights awake I have not been able to lay in bed because of physical problems the prohibited it. I would move around the house, doing what I was able to, and after a dew days of zero sleep, I sat down in a particular chair (not a recliner) and awoke one hour later, feeling as is I had slept much longer (but time does not lie…). I have always had a strong will, which is a gift when you have health issues, and so in the past, when I was more mobile and flexible, I would push through the pain to finish some trade. The way that the body works–even when it does not work properly: Fascinates! What I found interesting after I read the study about the SEALS is that my major difficulty [in opposition to the SEALS waning mental capacity] was that I began to struggle with uncontrollable inflammation of all sorts (possibly explained by my rheumatic condition [a part of my immune system attacks my joints]), but the symptoms did not all match the rheumatologists’s diagnosis. I think that I have the heart of a Delta Force soldier (they would understand the mild humor here) with a body that would never have made it this far without modern medicine.

    As goes the study of philosophy as a bedtime “wind-down” it is a time when I set Thomas’ commentary on the Metaphysics aside and work on philosophy that moves the soul toward our ultimate felicity. As a relatively brief example, I can read in my English copy of Thomas’ commentary of Boethius On The Trinity (based on a critical edition and edited by the future Leonine editor): “Ibn Sina points out that the distinction between theoretical and practical means something different in philosophy, in the arts, and in medicine. In philosophy and the arts the distinction arises from a distinction of goal, the theoretical seeking only knowledge of truth whereas the practical has activity in mind. But philosophy as a whole makes the distinction in a different way from the arts. For philosophy has regard to the goal of all human life, happiness–as Augustine says, quoting Varro, what other reason is there for doing philosophy but to be happy–and so, since philosophers according to Aristotle distinguish two kinds of happy life, one contemplative and the other active, they divide philosophy into two . . . ” So, you might see from this example where studying this brand of philosophy (just don’t ask me to read Hobbes’ Leviathon again, or my animal side will come out! LOL) helps me to fulfill what St. Thomas says in ST I, II, 3, 4: The Essence of happiness consists in an act of the intellect. And the Thomist, Bartolome de Medina, commenting on similar lines from ST, says: “The happy life does not mean loving what we possess, but possessing what we love.” And so, reading about ultimate felicity, utilizing the gift of reason, being drawn into my mind instead of the preoccupations that haunt chronic pain, leads me back to a calm inner place of peace where I remember that I do not need to love what I possess (which is impossible when the are always uncomfortable) in order to be happy and comfortable in mental prayer (which is challenging at the moment: Being comfortable, that is), I need to possess the reality of God present with me through the supernatural life of grace, and love HIM. I am thus drawn to “see” God again through intuition, and allowed by the quiddity of the prayer of contemplation to finally rest; first, in God who loves me; second, in physical sleep or something close to it that allows my body to heal. As an aside, studies (official, but limited in a clinical sense) have been done on meditation that show that the type of calm that happens when we rest in a silent awareness of God our nerves heal or are regenerated (my pain doctors love that I share this stuff. It is also a great way for me to evangelize!). So, Semper Gumby, I hope that you will now see that I am actually seeking that ultimate felicity that allows me to be with God in a way that allows him to transform me, finding rest in an otherwise tiring and nerve-shattering life. May God be with you. Thank you for your kindness and also for your time.

  42. Semper Gumby says:

    Lucas Whittaker: Ok, I admit it. My abilities are closer to Calvin and Hobbes rather than Hobbes’ Leviathan.

    This might not be that helpful, but thought I’d mention it. Back in the States, months after the event I mentioned in my first comment yesterday, I asked a Marine how he was dealing with pain. He said Romans 8:18 was a gateway- sometimes- to peace.

    Not able to take a crack this evening at translating it into Latin, D-R Online has it so:
    Existimo enim quod non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis ad futuram gloriam, quae revelabitur in nobis.

  43. Vere credo! That little-known best friend of the great St. Bernard of Clairvaux, William of St. Thierry, wrote a wonderful commentary on the “Victory of Love” (different source) chapter in Romans.

    “For I reckon that the sufferings of this time are not worthy to compared” – for the sufferings have an end, but the promised gifts have no end; the sufferings can be calculated, the rewards are beyond calculation – “with the glory to come.” (Exposition On The Epistle To The Romans, Cistercian Fathers Series: Number Twenty-Seven).

    Gratias tibi ago! Non te diutius remorabor. Vale!

Comments are closed.