8 May 2009

Latin Grammar

Fr Zed reveals that Notitiae has published a list of corrections to the Missalis Romani Editio tertia. They include corrections of grammar.

I have been shocked over the years as I looked at the propria novissima published in Notitiae to find that, time and time again, IV form errors in latinity jumped up at me off the page. I recall there was a nastiness in the first form of the collect published for S Edith Stein; but the lectio for S Padre Pio was a tour de force in the absolutely disgraceful.

The 1869 Breviary I use for Dominical and Festal Vespers ... not unlike the 1950s Missal I use over in the church ... has a nice bit at the front by Victor Augustus Isidorus Dechamps, Dei et Apostolicae Sedis gratia Archiepiscopus Mechliniensis, Primas Belgii, Sanctitatatis suae Praelatus domesticus et solio pontificio assistens, all about how he has obeyed a decree of Urban VIII to have printers' proofs carefully checked per revisorem a nobis deputatum. Before the Council it was inconceivable to come across even minor typos in a liturgical book. Now they abound; just one big example: if you use the Second Edition of the Liturgia Horarum, check through the patristic reading for the Cathedra S Petri in the two versions in the two volumes in which it is printed (it can come either before or during Lent). And not just typos galore, but substantive errors in Latin originals.

!n 1998, as Lancing College celebrated its 150 years, we sent off two letters asking for blessings; one, in formal Byzantine curial Greek, to the Ecumenical Patriarch, one, in equally formal Latin, to the Sovereign Pontiff. The former replied most graciously with several pages in the same style of Greek; the latter replied not at all. My conclusion was that nobody at all knows any Latin at all in the Vatican.

Except, of course, for Benedict XVI. He's no fool. He took care to write the new Prayer for the Jews himself.

12 comments:

Ben said...

A professor emeritus friend of mine, when a boy at Ampleforth, was set the task of printing new altar cards for the private Mass altars in the crypt. He set them up beautifully in black and red, and had just run off a few dozen sets when one of the monks spotted an error: 'suspiciat', where 'suscipiat' was wanted.

How many priests today would (a) know what altar cards are, (b) think it a good idea to have a schoolboy print them, (c) know that you can print things without using an inkjet, (d) bother to proofread something produced for the liturgy, or (e) know that you can check spelling without using a spellcheck, let alone (f) be able to spot an error in a Latin prayer?

SJH said...

"Except, of course, for Benedict XVI. He's no fool. He took care to write the new Prayer for the Jews himself."

Except that, as I understand it, there's controversy over whether it was printed with the wrong conclusion! As I understand it, it has the short one, but the other collects at that place in the Good Friday Liturgy use long conclusions.

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"Except that, as I understand it, there's controversy over whether it was printed with the wrong conclusion! As I understand it, it has the short one, but the other collects at that place in the Good Friday Liturgy use long conclusions."

Yes, when it was printed, it had "Per Christum.." Whoever wrote that prayer had already forgotten a lot about the old rites!

However, when FSSP came up with an MP3 of the new prayer they gave it the correct conclusion, and trads in communion with Rome follow that practice. In our Filipino parish where the 1962 Triduum is used, the priest chants the new prayer with the conclusion provided by the FSSP.

rev'd up said...

I know of FSSP parishes that did not use the new fangled kosher prayer. Also, it was noted by many that when the prayer was being "promulgated" Fr. Berg, FSSP Superior, pulled a Brer Fox - an juz lay low. It was the silly Trans-Alpines that took the heat off of a lot of people who otherwise would have had to muster a response. What about the smurfs? They don't use the '62, period - let alone this new prayer (but they do ring the bells five times at the elevations - where'd that come from? goofy)

The best part (and everyone's emergency exit) is that the prayer was not officially promulgated unless one considers the bloggosphere official. How many parishes received official correspondence from the Vatican? Not a one that I know of. It used to be that every parish or at least chancery received certified mail when they were obliged to comply. I can just hear the local bishop telling his priests that "When you use the '62 Latin Missal you..." Haha! Not in this town!

Now, some may think that the cut and paste kosher prayer in their Missal looks great, but isn't that kind of what this post was originally about? Something has been thrown under the bus.

Canon Jerome Lloyd OSJV said...

Indeed... fair points... but then look at the reprint of the last edition of "The English Missal"... does nobody remember the distinction drilled by liturgy professors for ages and now championed by Fr Zed... "Say the black do the red?"!!!!!!!

Carlos Antonio Palad said...

"What about the smurfs? They don't use the '62, period - let alone this new prayer (but they do ring the bells five times at the elevations - where'd that come from? goofy)"

They do use the 1962, but with a ton of interpolations from pre-1956. But then, who doesn't? I've heard that only the Oratorians are strict '62.

davidswyerssc said...

Who on earth are the Smurfs? I take it they are not those little blue chaps.

rev'd up said...

Institutum Christi Regis Summi Sacerdotis AKA "the smurfs."

Ttony said...

Dear Sr Palad; five times is an American practice. One, to warn that the elevation is about to start; two, to say that the priest is genuflecting; three, to say that the priest is elevating; four, to say that the priest is genuflecting; and five, to say that the elevation has finished. Americans use the bell to indicate the point the Mass has reached more often than we do in E&W.

BillyD said...

In my American parish this morning, I think I counted seven bell ringings during the Canon:

1) To indicate that the consecration is about to begin
2) The priest genuflects.
3) The priest elevates the Host.
4) The priest genuflects.
5) The priest genuflects after consecrating the Precious Blood.
6) The priest elevates the chalice.
7) The priest genuflects.

rev'd up said...

Billy - what happens in your parish is correct.

- Once at the "Hanc igitur."

- Three times each at the words of institution: genuflect, elevate, genuflect.


More grist for the mill and a fable:

In some places, the Smurfs ring the bells at the "per ipsum." So the Smurfs are not traditionalists they are synthesists or as Carlos aptly put it, interpolators.

---

Once upon a time, ethnic Polish parishes in the USA sounded a trumpet blast at the elevations.

Everyone considered the source, turned aside in red-faced embarrassment and the innovation vanished.

Too bad the NO and now the Smurfs aren't treated the same.

Albertus said...

Here in norhtern Europe, Holland, Belgium, Germany - the practice before the Council and still even to this day, is to ring the bell !) at the unveiling of the Chalice at the Offertorium 2) thrice at the Sanctus 3) once at Hanc Igitur 4) five times at each elevetaion - that is, opnce at each genuflection and thrice at each Elevation 5) at the Little Elevation at Per Ipsum 6) at Domine non sum dignus of the priest, once at the first DNSD, twice at the second DNSD, and thrice at the third DNSD.
At ROme that bell ringing is more sober: Thrice at Sanctus, once at Hanc Igitur, thrice at each Consecration (once at the genuflection, once at the Elevation, and once again at the genuflection), and once just before the Communion of the Faithful. I have never seen a smurf in my life, yet i have lived in both ROma and in Northern Europe, and the practice is as i have described, both before 1970, as well as now, in the Old RIte.