Sentire Cum Ecclesia

“Learning to Love: At the School of John Paul II & Benedict XVI” A book by Mons. Livio Melina

FEATURING
Fr Joel Wallace
Translator of Learning to Love: at the School of John Paul II and Benedict XVI (MODOTTI PRESS, 2011)

Fr Wallace is priest of the Diocese of Wagga Wagga and is currently completing a Doctorate in Sacred Theology at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute, Rome.

6 pm Tuesday November 8th, 2011
at The Caroline Chisholm Library
3rd Floor\358 Lonsdale Street Melbourne 3000
RSVP 5 pm November 7th. (03) 9670 1815 or cclibrary@bigpond.com

Learning to love at the School of John Paul II and Benedict XVI is a profound introduction to that “theology of love” which lies at the heart of the Christian Faith.

Professor Livio Melina, Professor & President of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family presents the mind of Pope John Paul II and his successor, Pope Benedict XVI to learn the “fascinating beauty” of human love.

“… Setting aside both romanticism and rationalism, Livio Melina offers readers a deeper understanding of love, leading to the relationship between love and hope. This is an encouraging and inspiring work.” Bishop Peter J. Elliott Director, John Paul II Institute, Melbourne Session.

It’s a big week ahead, with All Saint’s and All Soul’s Day’s coming up. Just a reminder to get to the confessional box sometime soon, so that you can avail your departed loved ones of the plenary indulgence associated with the latter feast. But for the rest of the week, here are the propers from the new Roman Missal:

Entrance Antiphon:
(cf. Psalm 37 (38):22-23)
Forsake me not, O Lord, my God;
be not far from me!
Make haste and come to my help,
O Lord, my strong salvation.

Collect
Almighty and merciful God,
by whose gift your faithful offer you
right and praiseworthy service,
grant, we pray,
that we may hasten without stumbling
to receive the things you have promised.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Prayer over the Offerings
May these sacrificial offerings, O Lord,
become for you a pure oblation,
and for us a holy outpouring of your mercy.
Through Christ our Lord.

Communion Antiphon
(cf. Psalm 15 (16):11)
You will show me the path of life,
the fullness of joy in your presence, O Lord.
Or:
(John 6:58)
Just as the living Father sent me
and I have life because of the Father,
so whoever feeds on me
shall have life because of me, says the Lord.

Prayer after Communion
May the working of your power, O Lord,
increase in us, we pray,
so that, renewed by these heavenly Sacraments,
we may be prepared by your gift
for receiving what they promise.
Through Christ our Lord.

Latin

Antiphona ad Introitum:
(cf. Psalm 37 (38):22-23)
Ne derelínquas me, Dómine Deus meus,
ne discédas a me;
inténde in adiutórium meum,
Dómine, virtus salútis meæ.

Collect
Omnípotens et miséricors Deus, de cuius múnere venit,
ut tibi a fidélibus tuis digne et laudabíliter serviátur,
tríbue, quaesumus, nobis,
ut ad promissiónes tuas sine offensióne currámus.
Per Dominum…

Prayer over the Offerings
Fiat hoc sacrifícium, Dómine, oblátio tibi munda,
et nobis misericórdiae tuæ sancta largítio.
Per Christum…

Communion Antiphon
(cf. Psalm 15 (16):11)
Notas mihi fecísti vias vitæ,
adimplébis me laetítia cum vultu tuo, Dómine.
Or:
(John 6:58)
Sicut misit me vivens Pater, et ego vivo propter Patrem,
et qui mandúcat me, et ipse vivet propter me,
dicit Dóminus.

Prayer after Communion
Augeátur in nobis, quaesumus, Dómine,
tuæ virtútis operátio,
ut, refécti caeléstibus sacraméntis,
ad eórum promíssa capiénda tuo múnere praeparémur.
Per Christum…

Old ICEL

Entrance Antiphon:
(cf. Psalm 37 (38):22-23)
Do not abandon me, Lord.
My God, do not go away from me.
Hurry to help me, Lord, my Saviour.

Collect
God of power and mercy,
only with your help
can we offer you fitting service and praise.
May we live the faith we profess
and trust your promise of eternal life.
Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Prayer over the Offerings
God of mercy,
may we offer a pure sacrifice
for the forgiveness of our sins.
We ask this through Christ our Lord.

Communion Antiphon
(cf. Psalm 15 (16):11)
Lord, you will show me the path of life
and fill me with joy in your presence.

Or:
(John 6:58)
As the living Father sent me,
and I live because of the Father,
so he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood
will live because of me.

Prayer after Communion
Lord,
you give us new hope in this Eucharist.
May the power of your love
continue its saving work among us
and bring us to the joy you promise.
We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord.

COMMENTS

The Entrance Antiphon is similar to the verses in the Revised Grail Psalter, although with some variation. The verses in the RG are:

Forsake me not, O Lord, my God;
My God, be not far from me!
Make haste and come to my help,
my LORD and my salvation.

In this case, while the RG version appears to be taken as the basis of the translation, the translators noted carefully the actual wording of the Latin antiphon, and adjusted the antiphon accordingly. I think the result is a far more lyrical (and accurate) translation than the one in Old ICEL.

I note in the Collect that we get an “and” between “Almighty” and “merciful”, which we didn’t get in the collect for last week between “Almighty” and “ever-living”. The reason is simple: there is an “and” in the Latin. Note that, just as in the old Sanctus we ended up with “God of power and might”, the Old ICEL changed the Latin adjectives to genitives of description or quality. That is actually a bit of an archaism (almost a Hebraism) and the adjectives are better. The Old ICEL had the theology of the descriptive phrase right, ie. that “only with [God’s] help can we offer [God] fitting service and praise”, but the new translation is more accurate. The whole point of the collect nicely illustrates the relationship between merit and grace which we find so often in the Latin collects: there is merit in what we offer God, but it is always and only by his gracious gift that we are able to offer God anything at all. But the Old ICEL completely (and characteristically) omitted the striking image of “hastening” towards God’s promises as if in a race (an image used repeatedly by St Paul, cf. 1 Cor 9:24, 2 Tim 4:7, and Heb 12:1). It is a dynamic image (including “pursuing” and “striving”) that appears repeatedly in the collects for this time of year, as we draw near to the end of the Church’s calendar. The new translation also preserves the possibility that we might “stumble” (the Latin asks that we might hasten “without offense/injury”) in that “race”. Is it too much to say that Old ICEL was a bit embarrassed by the possibility that we might fail to reach the promises of God? Finally, could we say that Old ICEL narrowed “the things you have promised” down to “eternal life”?

In the Prayer over the Offerings, we note the curious way in which the Old ICEL translation distances the prayer from the specific situation of the offering of the bread and wine on the altar before the priest, and speaks of a sacrifice which will be offered rather than is being offered. I think this is a case of the old discomfort and confusion between the offering of the gifts of bread and wine at the offertory and the oblation of the Lord’s body and blood that takes place during the Eucharistic Prayer. The new translation preserves the distinction in the Latin more closely between “hoc sacrificium” (“these sacrifices”), ie. the bread and the wine, and the Eucharistic oblation (“oblation munda”). I think it could have done so more powerfully by saying directly, as the Latin does, “Make these sacrifices [ie. of bread and wine] a pure oblation to you [ie. the Eucharistic oblation of Christ’s body and blood]”. Note again that the Old ICEL uses a genitive of description (“God of mercy”) to pick up “misericordiae tuae”, but otherwise again narrows the application of “mercy” to “the forgiveness of our sins”. It also misses the great generosity of the Lord by not translating “largitio”. Those who pray the Latin table grace (“Benedic, Domine, nos et haec tua dona quae de tua largitate sumus sumpturi”) will know how “largitas” is used of God’s bounty. The new translation uses “outpouring”, which is okay, but… I guess “a holy bounty of your mercy” wouldn’t have worked.

The first Communion antiphon is the translation in the Revised Grail, with “O Lord” added at the end as in the Latin. The Latin actually preserves a nice Hebrew anthropomorphism that is not in either old or new ICEL, “before your face” for “in your presence”. I can’t quite understand what I take to be an error in citation in reference to the second antiphon from the Gospel of St John – perhaps you can help me. The Missal (in the Latin and both Old and New ICEL) gives the citation as John 6:58, but as far as I can see it is John 6:57. Even when I checked the New Vulgate on the Vatican website, the verse is given as John 6:57. So is this just an error that slipped in and was never corrected? In any case, both the Latin and new translation are direct quotations of John 6:57 (neither are RSV related, because the RSV tradition has “live” instead of “have life”). Old ICEL balked at the bold statement of Jesus in the Gospel “whoever eats me” (note that even the new translation has “feeds on me”, not quite “manducat”, which is literally “chew” or “munch” or “gnaw”, a literal translation of the Greek “trogo” in John 6:57) and puts instead “he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood”. There is a shocking realism to this verb that led many of Jesus’ would-be disciples in John’s Gospel to forsake him at this point.

In the Prayer after Communion, we find the same sacramental theology that we found in last week’s prayer, including the plural “Sacraments” as a reference to twin sacrament of Christ’s body and blood. Old ICEL smoothed this over with a vague reference to “this Eucharist”. Also “new hope” or “renew”? We are not just given “new hope” by “these Sacraments”, but indeed are truly “renewed” (“refecti”) by them.

The Illustrious House of Hannover,
And Protestant succession,
To these I lustily will swear,
Whilst they can keep possession:
For in my Faith, and Loyalty,
I never once will faulter,
But George, my lawful king shall be,
Except the Times shou’d alter.

Well, perhaps the times they are a’altering. Or perhaps not.

News is just in that the CHOGM meeting yesterday decided to support changes to the rules of succession of the English (and therefore the Australian) Monarchy. The changes are:

1. Male offspring of the royal couple no longer to have precedence over older femail offspring in the order of succession to the throne; and

2. The ban on spouses of Catholics ascending to the throne is to be abolished.

Neither decision is yet, in fact, law. That change requires an act of the British Parliament; but I think it is a fair bet that both changes will be made now that the Commonwealth Heads of Government all support the change.

However, perhaps the Vicar of Bray doesn’t yet have to “turn the Cat in Pan again”, because this doesn’t mean the end to the Protestant succession. As the Archbishop of Canterbury was saying in his interview on Vatican Radio yesterday,

“My immediate reaction is that the possibility for the monarch to marry a Catholic is not something I lose any sleep over, but the constitutional question, of course the tough one, is the upbringing of any heir to the throne in an Anglican environment, given that the heir to the throne will be the supreme governor, under law, of the Church of England. So I very much welcome the statement made by Archbishop Vincent (Nichols) in response today to this announcement in which he has recognised exactly that problem and made some supportive comments about the establishment of the Church of England. I think if we’re quite clear that, so long as the monarch is supreme governor of Church of England, there needs to be a clear understanding that the heir is brought up in that environment, all well and good, and I think Archbishop Vincent has affirmed some important things about the common ground we already share as Anglicans and Roman Catholics.

“I don’t sense there’s a great head of steam about that as an issue in itself. I think the question of royal marriage is one which understandably has aroused a certain amount of popular feeling because it looks like a simple question of human rights and it also looks like a bit of an anachronistic discrimination against Roman Catholics dating back to the time when people saw them as the Taliban of their day. So I can see the popular feeling behind that – I don’t sense much popular feeling or even political feeling around disestablishment as an agenda.

I do see a problem here, one that Archbishop Nichols might like to consider. When Catholics marry Protestants, they have to agree to do all in their power to raise their offspring as Catholics, and the prospective Protestant spouse has to be made aware of (although not actually promise to support) this obligation on the part of the spouse. This is the usual requirement for a dispensation, without which the marriage could not be recognised by the Church. That is something that would need to be worked through.

The actual canons are as follows:

Canon 1124 Without the express permission of the competent authority, marriage is prohibited between two baptised persons, one of whom was baptised in the catholic Church or received into it after baptism and has not defected from it by a formal act, the other of whom belongs to a Church or ecclesial community not in full communion with the catholic Church.

Canon 1125 The local Ordinary can grant this permission if there is a just and reasonable cause. He is not to grant it unless the following conditions are fulfilled:

1° the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church;

2° the other party is to be informed in good time of these promises to be made by the catholic party, so that it is certain that he or she is truly aware of the promise and of the obligation of the catholic party

3° both parties are to be instructed about the purposes and essential properties of marriage, which are not to be excluded by either contractant.

Discuss.

Tomorrow the girls and I are taking a half day off and going to see the Queen, as she visits Melbourne for what is likely to be the very last time. We hope to catch a glimpse of her in Federation Square (hopefully now clear of unoccupied Occupiers) when she does the Meet and Greet at 12:30 tomorrow.

I think it will be something special for them, which they will one day be able to tell their great-grandchildren about. “When we were very young we saw good old Queen Elizabeth on her last visit to Australia”. God knows what sort of political situation they will be living in then, but I am sure that the sixty or more years that we have just lived through will one day be known as the “Second Elizabethan Golden Age” on account of the unparalleled peace and democracy that the Commonwealth of Nations which was once the British Empire has enjoyed under her reign.

UPDATE: Well, we saw the Queen, and, as the famous citation had it, we did but see her passing by. It was a little disappointing that the retinue of security guards and other VIPs on the walk through with her surrounded her and made her difficult to see. It was also an interesting experience in crowd behaviour. We arrived fairly early, and, while not establishing front row seats, did get close to the barriers. There was a good spirit especially among the families that turned out. But as the time drew near for the Queen to pass by, suddenly things got ferocious. A number of people in their mid-twenties established their position at the fence, and refused to allow the small children in front of them so that they could see. Others just began pushing and forcing their way to the front. It reminded me more of being in Italy than in Australia! In the end, I picked up two small children behind us and held them up so they could see “the lady in pink”. I felt a little guilty that I did not do this until the Queen was almost finished passing by, but the children’s mother (herself of Zaccheus’ stature) was so thankful that she stopped me later in the street to say thank you once more. Actually, speaking of Zaccheus, I think anyone who has ever been to one of the Queen’s “passing by’s” would know how he must have felt…

Here is a picture I snapped of the occasion:

Tonight we set up Mia’s new “Wii” machine on the telly. She has been saving for it herself, and has finally reached the required figure thanks to birthday gifts towards her efforts. So we all had a bit of fun designing the “Mii’s” before it was time for prayers, stories and bed.

One of the girls made the comment that “we should have a prayers program for the Wii”.

“I wonder if there is such a thing,” I said, having no idea if the Americans had not come up with just that. So I googled “Wii Prayers” to see what came up and hit this. It is, of course, a hoax, but we did have a bit of a giggle!

PRAYER WORKS INTERACTIVE LAUNCHES MASS: WE PRAY. NOW YOU DON’T HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL SUNDAY TO WORSHIP THE LORD.

Boston, Mass., November 17, 2009 – Prayer Works Interactive is pleased to announce the launch of Mass: We Pray, a revolutionary videogame that allows families to go to church every day from the comfort of their own home. After all, a family shouldn’t have to wait until Sunday to worship the Lord.

Mass: We Pray is the first of many worship-themed games in development for Prayer Works Interactive. Just like with any videogame, families can use a television as a monitor to play. Then, they can use the CROSS, a proprietary, wireless, cross-shaped controller to participate in 24 unique and exhilarating rituals. Make the Sign of the Cross, sprinkle Holy Water, take Collection and even give Holy Communion. Every motion and nuance of a blessing or ritual is detected in three dimensions and replicated on-screen.

As they play, gamers collect Grace points. Then they can trade them in to unlock the Holy Mysteries. It’s entertaining, educational and enlightening.

To get off the couch and into the action, add the KNEELER, a pressure-sensitive accessory that allows gamers to kneel or genuflect just as they would in Church.

To extend the experience even further, download the Seven Sacraments and Holy Rituals Expansion Pack featuring: Ash Wednesday, Confession, Holy Procession, Transubstantiation and much, much more.

According to the founders of Prayer Works Interactive, “Families shouldn’t be scared of videogames. Just like television and radio before that, it’s not the medium that’s dangerous; it’s how you use it. Mass: We Pray is proof that videogames can be used to spread the Good Word.”

Don’t miss this revolutionary launch, coming Easter 2010. Visit masswepray.com for more information.

With Mass: We Pray, you can bring your family closer. To Heaven.

About Prayer Works Interactive

Prayer Works Interactive is a new game-development company founded in Boston in 2007. We believe there is a lack of quality games based upon traditional family values. Our mission is to fill that void by creating engaging, top-quality games that entertain, inspire and bring families closer to the Lord. Our first game is Mass: We Pray, but look for many more in the months to come.

I have publically stated my own personal view (on this blog and at many ecumenical and interreligious meetings), that I cannot and do not endorse the current push to replace Special Religious Education in Victorian state schools with a generalised curriculum teaching all major religious traditions. I have nothing against the latter proposal at all, but I do object to the way in which the push for such an addition to the curriculum is in opposition to the retention of the current and long-running policy which allows every religious tradition access to schools to provide basic special catechesis particular to their tradition. The two are, it seems to me, both laudable and not to be opposed to one another.

I therefore applaud the decision of the Melbourne Anglican Synod reported in The Age in this article:

Anglicans reject multi-faith education in schools
Barney Zwartz October 24, 2011

Anglicans have rejected a call to introduce multi-faith general religious education into schools.

MELBOURNE Anglicans have rejected a call to introduce a multi-faith general religious education into all Victorian state schools, in a move described as a return to sectarianism.

Melbourne historian Peter Sherlock, who seconded the proposal, said Friday night’s vote at the Melbourne synod was “a stunning reversal of 140 years of campaigning for religious education in schools” and a return to 19th century sectarianism.

Supporters of the embattled religious education provider Access Ministries saw the vote as vindication, with Access chairman Bishop Stephen Hale saying to support the call would have endorsed what he called a campaign carried out by The Age.

The synod rejected, by 204 votes to 167, a proposal to ask the state Education Minister to develop a separate program of multi-faith and general religious education that could operate alongside the voluntary special religious instruction program. It passed without debate a motion commending Access and thanking volunteers.

Access provides 96 per cent of the volunteers and a third of those are Anglicans. But it has come under fire over claims that some volunteers try to convert children, because children attend unless parents ask to opt out, and because children who opt out are not given meaningful activities.

The Uniting Church’s state synod last month declined to endorse Access, preferring to set up a taskforce to explore how best to provide religious education.

Dr Sherlock said: “The debate about religious education in schools has returned to the divisive and self-defeating sectarianism of the 1860s and 1870s.”

He said the synod vote implied that state school teachers could not conduct themselves professionally in the classroom. “The position of Access Ministries in relation to general religious education is ambiguous at best and deceitful at worst.”

Melbourne Archbishop Philip Freier told the synod he was surprised that religious education in schools had become such a public debate for the church, but that the right to teach Christian faith – granted when the state withdrew support to church schools in the 1870s – should not be removed or replaced by the study of world religions.

Bishop Hale said it was nonsense to claim this was a move towards sectarianism. The opposite was true – the act under which Access operated was put in place to overcome Catholic-Protestant sectarianism in the 1950s.

He said he opposed the motion not because he opposed general religious education but because to endorse it now while Access was under such attack would be a signal to The Age that its “campaign was accurate”. It would also give succour to the humanists and education union who opposed special religious education.

“There have been significant accusations against Access – especially that we proselytise – none of which has been validated or upheld by state and federal government inquiries,” Bishop Hale said. The Age had asserted it twice as fact in editorials, and had run several negative articles, he said.

He said other faith providers – Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, Baha’is and Jews – were more determined than ever to continue special religious education and that Hindus had seen demand for their special religious instruction in state schools rise four-fold thanks to the controversy.

I too reject the idea that this is a “return to sectarianism”. How can the support for continuation of a program that has been running continuously for so long be called a “return” to anything? The whole campaign against Special Religious Education – not entirely The Age’s own, but certainly fueled by The Age which has adopted it as editorial policy – must be exposed as unwarranted. In fact, it is this campaign which seems to me to smack of “sectarianism”, where the division is no longer “Catholic-Protestant” but “Christian-Secularist”. As the report above says in its conclusion, other faiths also have equal access to Special Religious Education. In my opinion, the continued provision of the right of all religious traditions in our community to have access to children belonging to their tradition in public schools is to be supported and continued, as the best way to ensure a non-sectarian level playing ground for religious communities in our society.

I have been considering the texts for the 30th Ordinary Sunday for some time, as I am rostered on music in my home parish this Sunday. I have already posted my setting of the Communion Antiphon and Psalm, and I have discovered that the Entrance Antiphon can quite easily be sung to the tune of Michael Herry’s “Give us Hearts Renewed in Love” (I don’t know about the legitimacy of using tunes composed for other texts… there may be a law against it.) For the Offertory, I intend to use the song “Sing Praise to our Creator” by Omer Westendorf (right click here to download score) and sung to the tune of “Gott Vater sei gepreisen” (Right click here to download midi file). I just happen to like this hymn and think it worthy of being sung as often as possible. And for the recessional, yes, mea culpa, a David Haas song, “Come Live in the Light”.

Anyway, Here are texts for the coming week, the 30th Ordinary Sunday, from the new Roman Missal. A brief commentary follows (although, as I say, don’t expect a Fr. Z. job!):

Entrance Antiphon:
(cf. Psalm 104 (105):3-4)
Let the hearts that seek the Lord rejoice;
turn to the Lord and his strength;
constantly seek his face.

Collect
Almighty ever-living God,
increase our faith, hope and charity,
and make us love what you command,
so that we may merit what you promise.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Prayer over the Offerings
Look, we pray, O Lord,
on the offerings we make to your majesty,
that whatever is done by us in your service
may be directed above all to your glory.
Through Christ our Lord.

Communion Antiphon
(cf. Ps 19 (20):6)
We will ring out our joy at your saving help
and exult in the name of our God.
Or:
(Eph 5:2)
Christ loved us and gave himself up for us,
as a fragrant offering to God.

Prayer after Communion
May your Sacraments, O Lord, we pray,
perfect in us what lies within them,
that what we now celebrate in signs
we may one day possess in truth.
Through Christ our Lord.

Latin

Antiphona ad Introitum:
(cf. Ps 104 (105):3-4)
Laetétur cor quaeréntium Dóminum.
Quaerite Dóminum, et confirmámini,
quaerite fáciem eius semper.

Collect
Omnípotens sempitérne Deus,
da nobis fídei, spei et caritátis augméntum,
et, ut mereámur ássequi quod promíttis,
fac nos amáre quod praecipis.
Per Dominum…

Prayer over the Offerings
Réspice, quaesumus, Dómine,
múnera quae tuæ offérimus maiestáti,
ut, quod nostro servítio géritur,
ad tuam glóriam pótius dirigátur.
Per Christum…

Communion Antiphon
(cf. Ps 19 (20):6)
Laetábimur in salutári tuo,
et in nómine Dei nostri magnificábimur.
Or:
(Eph 5:2)
Christus diléxit nos, et trádidit semetípsum pro nobis,
oblatiónem Deo in odórem suavitátis.

Prayer after Communion
Perfíciant in nobis, Dómine, quaesumus,
tua sacraménta quod cóntinent,
ut, quae nunc spécie gérimus,
rerum veritáte capiámus.
Per Christum…

Old ICEL

Entrance Antiphon:
(Ps 104 (105):3-4)
Let hearts rejoice who search for the Lord.
Seek the Lord and his strength,
Seek always the face of the Lord.

Collect
Almighty and ever-living God,
Strengthen our faith, hope, and love.
May we do with loving hearts
what you ask of us
and come to share the life you promise.
We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Prayer over the Offerings
Lord God of power and might,
Receive the gifts we offer
And let our service give you glory.
Grant this through Christ our Lord.

Communion Antiphon
(Ps 19 (20):6)
We will rejoice at the victory of God
and make our boast in his great name.

Or:
(Eph 5:2)
Christ loved us and gave himself up for us
as a fragrant offering to God.

Prayer after Communion
Lord,
bring to perfection within us
the communion we share in this sacrament.
We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord.

COMMENTS

The Entrance Antiphon is taken from the Revised Grail Psalter, as we have come to expect. But the Communion Antiphon from Psalm 19 (20):6 is not, although it is clearly inspired by it. The Latin Communion Antiphon in the Missal is taken from the Vulgate, and the English is a translation of the Vulgate verse. Interestingly, the old ICEL translation was in fact closer to the Hebrew of Psalm 19 (20), rather than a translation of the Latin. I think both the Entrance and Communion antiphons in the new translation are very singable (as evidenced by my setting of the Communion Antiphon). I was listening today to a program on Catholic Answers on the liturgy, and the point was made there that the translators kept the singing of the texts in mind when the translations were done. This fact may explain many things that would seem strange otherwise.

Looking at the Collect, there are two things of note. First, the phrase “fídei, spei et caritátis” is translated as “faith, hope and charity” rather than “faith, hope, and love” as in the Old ICEL. This reflects the policy of the new translation to use a variety of words for “love”, and in this case “charity” accurately translates “caritas“. Note that in the second Communion Antiphon, “Christus diléxit nos” is rendered “Christ loved us” – “dilexit” is another one of those “love” words used in the Missal. The Vulgate translated the same Greek word (the noun “agape” and the verb “agapao“) with “caritas” on the one hand and “dilexi” on the other.

Secondly, note the use of the word “merit” in the new translation of the Collect (translating “mereámur“). We have commented on the fact that Old ICEL avoided translating “gratia/grace” on many (if not all) occasions. As if to balance this omission, the Old ICEL also removed all language of merit. One Protestant complaint of the traditional Collects in the Roman rite is that they contained a lot of “merit” language, which is, of course, anathema to Protestant ears. But in Catholic theology, “merit” and “grace” are closely connected, and both are required for accurate theology of our relationship with God. Our “merit” is solely the gift of God’s “grace” – we do not “earn” salvation – but what God gives by his grace truly becomes ours and does not remain purely “extra nos”, and thus is for us “merit”.

In the Prayer over the Offerings, we note that the new translation again includes “your majesty” (translating “tuæ…maiestáti“). Old ICEL clearly judged this as an insufficiently intimate way to speak to God. The new translation clearly judges that it is appropriate, and not only accurate, to translate the prayer in this way. It is a reminder that when we stand in God’s presence in the Sacred Liturgy we are in fact standing in the royal court of the King of Heaven.

It is notable that whenever the Missal gives an alternative Communion Antiphon it is almost always (I haven’t yet found an exception) taken from the New Testament. I can’t find yet any exact pattern in the choice of these verses, but this one is especially appropriate as a Communion Antiphon, stressing the self-offering of the Son to the Father. The translation is word for word the RSV (omitting “and sacrifice”/ “et hostiam“, according to the Missal text – I don’t know why this was omitted from the Antiphon, as it too would have been very appropriate).

The Old ICEL translation of the Post-Communion Prayer was quite clearly more of a paraphrase than an exact translation. The Latin doesn’t mention anything like “the communion we share”. It instead speaks of “species” – ie. “appearances”. I don’t much care for the word “signs”. We do speak of the sacramental “species”, namely, the “appearance” of bread and wine. Together with “sacramenta” this is the classic Augustinian doctrine of the Sacraments: that behind (Lutherans would say “in, with and under”) the species is the heavenly reality which empowers the Sacrament with grace. Interestingly, the plural “sacraments” is used – although I don’t think in this context we are supposed to think of the seven sacraments, but rather of the “sacraments” of Christ’s body and blood. “We may one day possess in truth” may sound a little like suggesting that we don’t “in truth” possess Christ’s body and blood here and now, and that is unfortunate, but “in truth” is an accurate rendering of “veritate“. The idea is that we will one day possess these hidden gifts in the face to face reality of the presence of Christ in the Wedding Feast of Heaven. I don’t know how else this could be better expressed. In any case, this Collect is an excellent example of “lex orandi, lex credendi” – the prayer expresses exactly our Catholic faith concerning the Sacraments.

I think Rachel Kohn got more than she bargained for when she interviewed this guy, a man of true Christian faith! At first the fellow sounds as mad as a cut snake, but listen through until the end, and you will hear a true evangelist!

Kate of “Australia Incognita” has often complained of misrepresentation by Mr Michael Mullins on the CathNews “Blogwatch”. Now I am the victim of his fantasies. He reports on this morning’s Blogwatch:

Sentire Cum Ecclesia surprises himself when he comes out in support of gay marriage, or at least accepting it as inevitable and tolerable.

How he managed to get the impression from this post that I accept “gay marriage” as “inevitable and tolerable”, let alone that I am “in support of gay marriage”, I have no idea at all.

Thank’s to “DN” for already posting an objection and for alerting me to this slander. I myself have just submitted the following comment to Mr Mullins:

SCE coming “out in support of gay marriage, or at least accepting it as inevitable and tolerable”? How on earth do you get that out of what I posted?

“Supporting gay marriage” is NOT the same thing as “accepting it as inevitable and tolerable”, and I did NOT even (DO NOT even) do that.

I think this might be an appropriate opportunity for you to offer me a public apology for grossly misrepresenting what I wrote, Mr Mullins.

I wonder what will happen now? Nothing, if Kate’s experience is anything to go by.

Here are texts for the coming week from the new Roman Missal. A brief commentary follows (although don’t expect a Fr. Z. job!):

Entrance Antiphon:
cf. Ps 16 (17):6, 8
To you I call; for you will surely heed me, O God;
turn your ear to me; hear my words.
Guard me as the apple of your eye;
in the shadow of your wings protect me.

Collect
Almighty ever-living God,
grant that we may always conform our will to yours
and serve your majesty in sincerity of heart.
Through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,
who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Prayer over the Offerings
Grant us, Lord, we pray,
a sincere respect for your gifts,
that, through the purifying action of your grace,
we may be cleansed by the very mysteries we serve.
Through Christ our Lord.

Communion Antiphon
cf. Ps 32 (33):18-19
Behold, the eyes of the Lord
are on those who fear him,
who hope in his merciful love,
to rescue their souls from death,
to keep them alive in famine.
Or:
Mk 10:45
The Son of Man has come
to give his life as a ransom for many.

Prayer after Communion
Grant, O Lord, we pray,
that, benefitting from participation in heavenly things,
we may be helped by what you give in this present age
and prepared for the gifts that are eternal.
Through Christ our Lord.

Latin

Antiphona ad Introitum:
cf. Ps 16 (17):6, 8
Ego clámavi, quóniam exaudísti me, Deus;
inclína aurem tuam, et exáudi verba mea.
Custódi me, Dómine, ut pupíllam óculi;
sub umbra alárum tuárum prótege me.

Collect
Omnípotens sempitérne Deus,
fac nos tibi semper et devótam gérere voluntátem,
et maiestáti tuæ sincéro corde servíre.
Per Dominum…

Prayer over the Offerings
Tríbue nos, Dómine, quaesumus,
donis tuis líbera mente servíre,
ut, tua purificánte nos grátia,
iísdem quibus famulámur mystériis emundémur.
Per Christum…

Communion Antiphon
cf. Ps 32 (33):18-19
Ecce óculi Dómini super timéntes eum,
et in eis qui sperant super misericórdia eius;
ut éruat a morte ánimas eórum, et alat eos in fame.
Or:
Mk 10:45
Fílius hóminis venit,
ut daret ánimam suam redemptiónem pro multis.

Prayer after Communion
Fac nos, quaesumus, Dómine,
cæléstium rerum frequentatióne profícere,
ut et temporálibus benefíciis adiuvémur,
et erudiámur ætérnis.
Per Christum…

Old ICEL

Entrance Antiphon:
Ps 16 (17):6,8
I call upon you, God, for you will answer me;
bend your ear and hear my prayer.
Guard me as the pupil of your eye;
hide me in the shade of your wings.

Collect
Almighty and ever-living God,
our source of power and inspiration,
give us strength and joy
in serving you as followers of Christ,
who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,
one God, for ever and ever.

Prayer over the Offerings
Lord God,
may the gifts we offer
bring us your love and forgiveness
and give us freedom to serve you with our hearts.
We ask this in the name of Jesus the Lord.

Communion Antiphon
cf. Ps 32 (33):18-19
See how the eyes of the Lord are on those who fear him,
on those who hope in his love,
that he may rescue them from death
and feed them in time of famine.

Or:
Mk 10:45
The Son of Man came to give his life as a ransom for many.

Prayer after Communion
Lord,
may this Eucharist help us to remain faithful.
May it teach us the way to eternal life.
Grant this through Christ our Lord.

COMMENTS

The new entrance antiphon, taken word for word from the Revised Grail Psalter, is an improvement on the old translation in my mind – ie. “apple of your eye” instead of “pupil of your eye” and “shadow of your wings” rather than “shade of your wings”). The meaning is the same, but the language is more familiar to those of us used to the KJV or RSV.

My first comment on the Collect is that the “and” between “Almighty” and “ever-living” in Old ICEL seems preferable to me (note that this is one case where they didn’t translate the address as “Father”, which was very common in Old ICEL) – but maybe that is just the Ghost of Cranmer whispering in my head. I know that there isn’t an “and” in the Latin – it would just flow better in English, is all. The second thing that occurred to me is the “grandness” of the opening address. “Sounds like someone addressing a King,” I thought. And then we get to the phrase “serve your majesty”, and I thought “Yep, we’re firmly in the royal court here”. I listened to an interesting paper on the radio not long ago about how the King James Version of the Bible actually overused the word “majesty” for a number of Hebrew words in the Old Testament which had not previously been translated as such – ostensibly to undergird the ideas of the divine right of kings so beloved by the Stuart monarchs. The point is, God is the our true King, and he seeks to reign over our hearts, and our hearts are the seat of our wills, and that is the arena in which this collect prays that we may be his loyal subjects. Old ICEL, as you can see, didn’t like any of this, so wrote what is ostensibly a completely different prayer from the one in the Missal.

I really don’t know what to make of the two English translations of the Offertory prayer. One thing at a time, then. “Donis tuis” is clearly “your gifts” and not “the gifts we offer”. Old ICEL has completely reversed this. But the new translation has not translated “líbera mente” – “a sincere respect” is not the same thing at all. Old ICEL at least had “give us freedom to serve you with our hearts” which comes somewhere near this. Again, notice how “gratia” is translated by Old ICEL as “love and forgiveness”. The new ICEL text at least translates “purifying” and “cleanse” (“purificánte” and “emundémur”), which were omitted from the old translation. On the blog of “The Roman Sacristan”, I found this rendering which seems good to me:

Grant us by Your gifts, we beseech You, O Lord, to serve You with free minds, so that, purifying us by Your grace, we may be cleansed by these same Mysteries by Which we serve You.

The Missal once again has a different communion antiphon from the Graduale Romanum, but this one does pick up on the “apple of your eye” from the Entrance Antiphon. It is almost word for word Revised Grail, except that the RG opens with “Yes, the LORD’s eyes…”. The Missal translates the “Ecce”, “Behold, the eyes of the Lord”, and the plural “oculi Domini” (instead of the Hebrew singular “the eye of the Lord”).

The second Communion antiphon is interesting in the light of the change in the new missal in the way “pro multis” is translated. I am working on St Mark’s Gospel at the moment in preparation for my new Anima course, and “Son of Man” language is particularly beloved by Mark, from which this passage is taken. But so is “Servant of the Lord” language, taken directly from Isaiah 52-53, and that is where this “pro multis”, “for many” language comes from (Isaiah 53:12). This is not the place to go into this issue in depth (see Ratzinger’s Jesus of Nazareth, Vol II for more treatment), but the basic idea is that in Isaiah “the many” are the multitude of Israel; and that in the sacrificial death of the Son of Man, “the many” has achieved a universal application.

As horrible as the old translation of the Post-Communion prayer was (it completely lost the key contrast between “temporalibus” and “aeternis“, and introduced a whole phrase that isn’t in the Latin “may this Eucharist help us to remain faithful”), the new translation still seems a bit of a paraphrase to me, and could have been a bit tighter. “Frequentatione” is, as it suggests, “by frequenting”, ie. “by frequent coming to” or “by frequent use”. It does mean, in this context “by participating in” but that translation loses the idea of it happening often – yea, verily, even every Lord’s Day and Holy Day as required by the Church. And “Proficere” is not “to benefit” but “to make headway”, ie. “to grow” or “to advance”. The idea of “you give” and “gifts” is taken from “beneficiis”, and “ut…erudiamur” is “that we may be educated, instructed, taught” or even “learned” (it is where we get our word “erudite” from). A graduate from a course of study is “eriditum”. Possibly the difficulty is right at the very beginning, where the translators render “Fac nos” as “Grant us” (they do the same thing in the Collect). If they had kept “make us”, it could read:

Make us, O Lord, we pray,
to advance by the frequent use of heavenly things,
that we may be helped by your good gifts in this present age
and well-prepared for the gifts that are eternal.

Is that an improvement?

Another interesting stylistic point that I don’t entirely agree with in the new translations is their policy on using the vocative “O” before titles of address. [You will notice, for instance, in 9th line of the new Gloria that suddenly a vocative “O” appears (“O God”), which isn’t used anywhere else in the entire hymn.] If you compare the Offertory prayer with the Post-Communion prayer, you will see a similar construction, but in the latter case there is an “O Lord”, and in the former there is simply “Lord”. In fact, the reason is entirely to do with how the text would be sung or chanted. The translators decided that if there was a strong stress on the syllable directly before a vocative, it would need an added “O” for the sake of rhythm. So in the Prayer over the Offerings, we get “Grant” [strong] “us” [weak], “Lord”, and in the Prayer after Communion we get “Grant” [strong], “O” [weak] “Lord”. I don’t like the inconsistency, but I guess it would get tedious if we used “O” all the time, and it is certainly the case that for the flow of the words we do sometimes need it. (The classic case is in the acclamation before the Gospel: “Glory to you, O Lord”. “Glory to you, Lord” was simply too awkward.)