Fr. Zuhlsdorf reveals that the Holy Father, in his great benevolence, will insist on Pro Multis being rendered non-idiotically in the upcoming Missal translation, expressly against the concensus of the Bishops. Fr. Z also provides four articles he wrote for The Wanderer arguing the point. Recall, if you will, the humorous scene from 2005:

Bishop Skylstad: All right. Thank you. The next item, then, that we need to discuss is number 58. Who proposed that? Bishop Foley.

Bishop Foley: It’s really a question. You mentioned in your answer “the expressed intention of the Holy See to speak definitively on the question in the near future”. What would be the background of that? Where have you heard that?

Bishop Trautman: Please recall that we did have a consultation on this. Overwhelmingly the American bishops favored the wording that we have now. And we do have some word from the Congregation that this is under active advisement right now. We expect the Holy Father and the Congregation to respond in the near future. So that’s what the response of the committee indicates. But we have declined, at this point, to change it.

Bishop Foley: Because pro multis is used quite extensively in the Scripture. And I look forward to hearing the Holy See, because I feel that it is an important point.

Bishop Trautman: At this point, though, the committee is saying we will stay with the wording that reflects the vast majority of bishops through the consultation. If the Holy See were to change then there will be a proper adjustment.

Bishop Skylstad: Okay, Cardinal George.

Cardinal George: Just to complete the conversation. This was debated at great length in the ICEL Committee itself. And the wording we have here is not only from our own conference’s consultation, but is the choice for all of the ICEL bishops throughout the world. At this point, depending on what the Holy See might raise.

Bishop Skylstad: Okay, thank you. Anyone else? I think that completes the discussion then. Yes, Bishop Cordileone.

Bishop Salvatore Cordileone (aux. San Diego): And I add my thanks to the committee for your Herculean effort here. I just want to reiterate the principle about the significance of Scriptural language. Since “the many” is used throughout Scripture and in the Lectionary why the decision was made to deviate from that principle? If I understand it correctly, it’s different from the principle mentioned by Bishop Roche. And I believe he also had mentioned that in his letter of June 2005.

Bishop Trautman: Again, the committee’s judgment must reflect the results of the consensus of the vast majority of American bishops. It is in possession; it is familiar to our people; it has been used for over thirty-five years. We think there’s a good Biblical foundation for it as well, too. So it’s a difference in prudential judgment here.

Cardinal George: Again, I would say something from the ICEL discussions. The original use of “for all” as a translation for pro multis was approved explicitly by the Holy See at a certain point. The background is somewhat speculative because of the Aramaic. Supposition of what it might have been isn’t very probative.

Other conferences, for example, in French it’s pour la multitude, “for the many”. The basic reason, I would say, for what it’s worth in the argumentation, was to not give force to the argument that some have made, particularly among the Lefebvrites, that our present consecratory words of institution are not valid, that this is in fact a valid translation of the Latin. And the Latin text, though it quotes in a sense Scripture, it is a liturgical text, not a Scriptural text.

In other words, we’re not doing a tableau or a pantomime of the Last Supper when we consecrate bread and wine in the context of the Canon of the Mass. So, it was more a prudential judgment again of where we are right now in the discussions around liturgy, not only within Catholic Communion but also with the Lefebvrite people. Again, I think the Holy See is looking at this with some caution, again, but that is sort of where the argument was, so it was an extrinsic argument, if you like, not an intrinsic from the text itself.

Bishop Skylstad: I think we’re ready for the vote; I don’t see any other hands. Yes, Bishop Bruskewitz.

Bishop Bruskewitz: Are we voting on 52, or whatever that one is?

Bishop Skylstad: Fifty-eight, number 58. I think we’re ready for the vote. All of those in favor of Bishop Foley’s intervention, amendment say “aye”. [Weak “aye”]. Those opposed. [Strong “no”]. Obviously the “no”s have it. Thank you.

go to main page

This was the last night of 40 Hours devotions at St. Alphonsus in Baltimore. Beginning on Sunday with a high Votive Mass of the Blessed Sacrament, procession and chanted Litany of Saints, it ended tonight with another procession and chanted Litany, as well as benediction. St. Alphonsus has the great distinction of having as its first Rector St. John Nepomucene Neumann, who later as Bishop of Philadelphia initiated the wonderful practice of maintaining continual 40 hours devotions throughout his dioceses by designating a parish for each weekend of the year. The german Redemptorists continued at St. Alphonsus until 1917 - Blessed Francis Xavier Xeelos also served as Rector during this period - when it was transferred to the Archdiocese and a large Lithuanian parish. The Messe de toujours is said at 11:30AM on Sundays and at 7PM on Holy days of Obligation.

Upon seeing this really silly picture in Rorate-Caeli’s post - of Assumption Grotto’s Easter Vigil Latin Novus Ordo (many more pictures here) - a passage I recently read in Adrian Fortescue’s Ceremonies of the Roman Rite Described immediately came to mind. After an initial discussion on altar servers, Fortescue remarks:

As a general rule, except in the case of processions and funerals (when an indefinite number of clergy, supposed to be the choir, stand around the hearse holding lighted candles), not more servers should attend than those really needed, who have some office to perform. It does not add to the dignity of a rite that a crowd of useless boys stand about the sanctuary doing nothing. Nor is it in accordance with the tradition of the Roman rite to add useless ornamental attendance. The servers needed for the ceremonies are sufficient to form the procession.

Apparent even in this brief passage is Fr. Fortescue’s sense of humor - a trait which certainly recommends him in our Society! However, as Michael Davies informs us in this excellent article, Fr. Fortescue was no mere jester. He possessed a triple Doctorate, could lecture in eleven languages, was an authority on heraldry, the greatest calligrapher in England, accomplished musician, and, as some perhaps excessively add, the greatest authority on the Roman rite the English-speaking world has ever known. But here at the Cornell Society for a Good Time, we know that humor is the best introduction. Luckily, so does Dom Alcuin Reid, OSB, who in his new edition of Fortescue and O’Connell’s “Ceremonies” provides several quotes from his private correspondence which I know our readers (especially those lay readers who aren’t so likely to have seen it before) will love:

Try to imagine for one solid year of my life…I spent all day comparing Merati & Martinucci & La Vavasseur, to find out where the Thurifer ought to stand before the Magnificat, who takes off the bishop’s left glove, what sort of bow you should make at the Asperges. I had to look serious, and discuss the arguments for a ductus duplex or the other thing, whatever it is called, at each candlestick, when you incense the altar. Conceive a man, said to be made in the image of God, spending his time over that kind of thing. Even now that the burden is over it fills me with rage to think of those days. I could have learned a new language easily in the time. I could have gone every day to the cinema. I could have read the complete works of Maria Corelli. My cat was spending his time in sane and reasonable pursuits, chasing birds in the garden, climbing trees, or sleeping in his basket, while I was describing the conduct of the second MC at pontifical Vespers not at the throne. And they affect to believe that we lead a nobler life than beasts…

You see, Fr. Fortescue wrote this most famous of his works to procure £300 in order to repair his church. Still, if it cannot be said that it was a labor of love, it was certainly one of necessity, for as Michael Davies informs us “until the publication of the Fortescue book, the Catholic clergy in England had relied upon a translation by the Reverend J.D. Dale of an Italian book written in 1839 by the Reverend G. Baldesehi, Master of Ceremonies in St Peter’s Basilica.” Fr. Fortescue spoke of this translation in a most eloquent manner:

It is said that the test of a good translation is that it should read like an original work. According to this ideal Dale comes off very badly indeed. He has such a mania for using Italian words that a great part or his book is not really English at all and can hardly be understood till one has translated it back into Italian. Not only does he use an Italian name on every possible occasion; when the words are English he translates with ruthless exactness all the gorgeous phrases of Italian grand style. For instance in Dale you do not bow to the celebrant, you “proceed to make the customary salutation”; you do not stand, you “retain a standing posture.” Everyone “observes” to do everything: you observe not to kneel, you observe to retain a kneeling posture. The MC. does not tell a man to do a thing, he apprizes him that it should he performed. The celebrant “terminates” the creed; he genuflects in conjunction with the sacred ministers - then he observes to assume a standing posture in conjunction with them. The MC. goes about apprizing and comporting himself till he observes to perform the customary salutation. The subdeacon imparts the Pax in the same manner as it was communicated to him. Everyone exhibits a grave deportment; Imagine anyone talking like this. Imagine anyone saying that you ought to exhibit a deportment. Of course, we have to “ascend” every time; the blessing is always “benediction”; harmful becomes ‘deleterious’ and so on. Frankly I do not think I have ever read a book written in so atrocious a style. The only thing in its favour is that it is extremely funny. However, since the book is meant to be serious it is a pity that someone did not apprize Dale to proceed to observe the customary use of language, in conjunction with people who write English.

Ha!

The second thing that one notes in that short passage against the superfluity of altar servers is the assertion: “Nor is it in accordance with the tradition of the Roman rite to add useless ornamental attendance.” Although I do not have the book presently, and I here note that I am as much a liturgical scholar as I am an astronaut, I remember from reading Fortescue’s “The Mass: a Study of the Roman Liturgy” that he often insisted on the sobriety and reserved character of the Roman Rite. All this talk of Roman gravity, of manly Gregorian chant, and of restraint in the face of Eastern exuberance, especially from a man who was so fascinated by the East, reminds of our august President’s very finely worded post on the effects of freeing the Traditional Latin Mass on men. Anyways, we certainly do hope that one day the West might reaquaint herself with the masculinity which our schismatic brethren never seem to have lost.

The whole point of this post - and the abundance of links I’ve provided - is to convince our readers that Fr. Fortescue is, to put it very mildly, an awesome guy. And, as the man who wrote the Catholic Encyclopedia articles on the Roman Rite, the Liturgy of the Mass, and many other things besides, you can read not a small amount of Fortecue’s wisdom without leaving your computer. Still I would very much recommend purchasing any of his books.
go to main page