In honor of the Apostle to the Gentiles let us make a rapid comparison of the Collects for today’s feast of the Conversion of St. Paul.
We’ll look first at the 1962 Missale Romanum and then the 2002 edition.
The Collect is nearly the same in both.
COLLECT (1962MR):
Deus, qui universum mundum beati Pauli Apostoli praedicatione docuisti: da nobis, quaesumus; ut, qui eius hodie Conversionem colimus, per eius exempla gradiamur.
This prayer is ancient. It is found already in the 8th century Liber sacramentorum Engolismensis (Angoulême) and the 9th century Augustodunensis (Autun) as well as the Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae ordine excarpsus, but with the variation in the Engolismensis “multitidinem gentium” in place of “universum mundum”.
Our precious Lewis & Short Latin Dictionary (UK HERE) informs us that the deponent verb gradior is “to take steps, to step, walk, go;” and in ecclesiastical Latin “of the conduct of life, to walk, live, conduct one’s self”. The French source for liturgical Latin I call Blaise/Dumas (UK HERE) indicates that gradior is “to behave oneself”.
An exemplum is, “a sample for imitation, instruction, proof, a pattern, model, original, example….”
For the Fathers, so steeped in Greek and Roman rhetoric and philosophy, exemplum could mean many things.
First, an exemplum brings auctoritas to your argument, “authority”, inter alia the moral, persuasive force of an argument. When we hear this prayer with ancient, Patristic ears, exemplum is not merely an “example” to imitate. It brings deeper moral force. Let’s spin that out.
The historic event of Paul’s conversion is a reason for hope. It is an incitement to lead the kind of life which will lead ultimately to being raised up after the Risen Christ, the perfect exemplum. The core of this exemplum is St. Paul’s response to the call of the Lord to turn his life around, his conversio or in Greek metánoia.
I especially like the word gradior in this prayer. It invokes the image of St. Paul trudging the byways (without a horse off of which to fall). And remember the subtle meaning of gradior includes behavior.
LITERAL VERSION:
O God, who instructed the whole world by the preaching of the Blessed Apostle Paul: grant us, we beseech You, that, we who are today honoring his Conversion, may walk according to his examples.
Many (many many) of the prayers of the pre-Conciliar form of the Missale Romanum, were cut up and changed for the Novus Ordo, if they made the cut at all. Today’s prayer is a case in point.
COLLECT (2002MR):
Deus, qui universum mundum
beati Pauli Apostoli praedicatione docuisti,
da nobis, quaesumus,
ut, cuius conversionem hodie celebramus,
per eius ad te exempla gradientes,
tuae simus mundo testes veritatis.
LITERAL VERSION:
O God, who instructed the whole world
by the preaching of the Blessed Apostle Paul:
grant us, we beseech You,
that we, walking in life toward You according to the examples of him
whose conversion we are celebrating today,
may be witnesses of Your truth in the world.
Some may argue that the newer Latin version makes the point of “witness” more clearly.
I am not convinced the ancient prayer needed these “improvements”. Are you? Were these improvements? Did the prayer really changing? Did the good of the Catholic faithful really call for that?
Today is also the anniversary of the moment that John XXIII announced the Second Vatican Council when at Vespers at the Basilica of St. Paul outside-the-walls. So, in reference to that Council’s first major document…
Sacrosanctum Concilium 23 gives a sound principle for liturgical changes which was nearly completely ignored.
23. That sound tradition may be retained, and yet the way remain open to legitimate progress careful investigation is always to be made into each part of the liturgy which is to be revised. This investigation should be theological, historical, and pastoral. Also the general laws governing the structure and meaning of the liturgy must be studied in conjunction with the experience derived from recent liturgical reforms and from the indults conceded to various places. Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
Surely, that’s what we got. Right?
Loading ...
They definitely ruined the balance of the clauses with their, umm, improvements. The new one is both clunk and unsatisfying in its composition. Style! Rhetoric! Elegance! These things matter so greatly, and they are so greatly ignored by modern man.
Sure, the witness is emphasized. But at what cost? At the cost, arguably, of diminishing the effect of the entire statement. And this is done now, almost universally, by the pastors of the Universal Church. One ought to heed the warnings of Dr. Johnson:
“Truth indeed is always truth, and reason is always reason; they have an intrinsic and unalterable value, and constitute that intellectual gold which defies destruction: but gold may be so concealed in baser matter, that only a chemist can recover it; sense may be so hidden in unrefined and plebian words, that none but philosophers can distinguish it; and both may be so buried in impurities, as not to pay the cost of their extraction.”
Finally, there must be no innovations unless the good of the Church genuinely and certainly requires them; and care must be taken that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing.
I have 3 questions, which are actually serious, not just snark.
(1) Are there upright and serious Catholic scholars today who honestly believe that this was actually followed? Were there then?
(2) Why did not the serious (and, presumably, horrified) scholars appointed to the Commission not complain to Pope Paul that the Commission was not following the above requirement at all, and the end product indeed utterly defied those obligations?
(3) Why did not Pope Paul reject the changes that clearly were in defiance of the standards set forth clearly in Sacrosanctum, and demand it be done right (presumably, appointing a different commission with better people and closer oversight)?
Given that the Mass is the central act of the Catholic faith, accepting a work product that even ignoring the theological mess is extraordinarily clumsy, unpoetic, and ugly would have been foolish. When you add in the theological grotesqueries, one can doubt how ANY prelate could possibly hold his nose and turn a blind eye long enough to sign off on it. What motivation could possibly have led Paul to do so, given that VII had already said what kind of reform should be undertaken, and this wasn’t it.
In my opinion it is not as bad as most modern collects. But this idea of walking toward God just is not helpful to me. Be that as it may,it occurred to me that celebrating the conversion of St Paul on Jan 25, shortly before Septuagesima was a brilliant decision since St Paul plays such an important role in that season. Indeed he is our model of what is good soil and we pray for his intercession on Sexigesima Sunday:
Deus, qui cónspicis, quia ex nulla nostra actióne confídimus: concéde propítius; ut, contra advérsa ómnia, Doctóris géntium protectióne muniámur.
I think the new prayer sounds a little pretentious. Instead of asking God to help us walk according to St. Paul’s examples, we assume that we already are.
@TonyO: From what I have read, Abp. Annibale Bugnini was very cunning in playing off Pope Paul and the commission against each other; keeping them apart, with himself as go-between, and telling the pope that commission was unanimously in favour of the changes he proposed, and telling the commission that they were the pope’s will. It has been said that Paul VI was shocked when he saw the result, but it was presented as a fait accompli with his apparent approval. It might actually be helpful if traditionalists presented themselves more often as standing up for the real implementation of Vatican 2!
One word comes to mind regarding modified-for-NO English versions of Collects: Why?
The distinctions are often without a difference, as in re-phrasing in a tinkering way. But other times it’s in language creeping away from that now deemed ‘offensive.’ And not subtly. Get over yourselves.
Collects are running into each other more and more, and you’ve heard one you’ve heard many, as there is no hearing effort required. Just keep your yawn under control.
Latin to English is settled. The unsettling we see more of is vain.
docsmith54 says: Get over yourselves.
Perhaps I am misinterpreting this. It is late and I am tired after a day of driving.
You continues with:
>>Collects are running into each other more and more, and you’ve heard one you’ve heard many, as there is no hearing effort required. Just keep your yawn under control.<< It is hard to take this seriously. It could be that you are out over your skis a little too far. >>Latin to English is settled. The unsettling we see more of is vain.<< So, just ... stop participating with FULL, CONSCIOUS, and ACTIVE participation. Is that it? Perhaps I misunderstand you. Furthermore, if the translation can be change once... it can be changed again and again and again and again... which is maybe what you want: constant adaptation (=dumbing down to how people talk today). No? Yes? "Get over yourselves", huh. I think you might be in the wrong lion's den. WE ARE OUR RITES. What we PRAY has a reciprocal relationship with what we BELIEVE.
The ‘yourselves’ of my ‘get over yourselves’ phrase refers to the tinkering translators; it was not immediately evident in my text. And I say a very quiet ‘Amen’ after NO Collect recitation or I say nothing.
In my experience, the best conforming NO Mass is no match for the TLM. And this is in no small part due to translations and liberties.