The spittle flecked nutties by ultra-traditional-ism-ists regarding never making any translation more precise, ever, are so incredibly misguided and ignorant that there is still, after all these years, unwavering and unqualified support for Liturgiam Authenticam, with those on the right saying that the attacks against it by the left are proof positive that it’s all good and must be supported. There are good things, but…
Those on the right who are naive and frightened of any kind of fight in this Church militant want nothing more than to hide behind anything whatsoever so as to feel safe, even if that requires surrender to the enemy, just as long as there is someone with hateful sarcasm and bitter cynicism telling them to do just that, because, you know, all that hateful bitterness is proof positive that someone is seriously on their side. But no one is on anyone’s side when sitting on a fence, particularly when that fence, these days, is made of razor wire. They are merely castrated cowards who know nothing, do nothing, except that they are always trying to please both camps, at least by continuing to know nothing and to do nothing, becoming useful idiots in this way.
Consider that Liturgiam Authenticam requires usage of the Nova Vulgata, whose textual critical principles are akin to those of Erasmus and Luther, so that the Nova Vulgata, however well intentioned back in the days of its being kick-started by Saint Pius X, turned into THE counter-counter-Reformation volley since the sixteenth century, even though it was finally published by Saint John Paul II. It is the Reformation all over again, but this time from within. And the useful idiot pundits merely say: “Well, I guess I never really looked into all that.” Right. That’s good enough, I guess, for the final judgment, right? You can’t just say that it’s all good because it’s in Latin. Nope. Doesn’t work that way.
Perhaps people should take such huge controversies a bit more seriously as they wade through the rivers of blood that have flowed because of these very questions. But we are the generation of being hip and clever because we are snarky and damning of all. And the darkness becomes all the more dark. And the channels for the blood to flow are being dug in just this way. How can we avoid the post-Reformation genocides that raged throughout Europe if we do exactly the same things that led up to those genocides?
As a cure, I recommend two things:
- “Humility, humility, humility,” as Pope Francis says. This changes everything.
- Give a flower to the Immaculate Conception. No, really, like a real flower. Go get a flower, at a florist if you have to, and put it in a vase, and bring it to a church, and put it in front of an image of our Lady, even on the floor if you have to. This changes everything. As a blast from the past, here’s a flower sent in by a reader from half-way around the world:
Oh, and then, hey! Why not figure out the treasure map:
There are rules for the treasure map. Most importantly, (A) and (B) of (1) and then (C) and (D) of (3) and not equated. (B) and (C) of (2) are equated, but only until 8 April 1546, not at any time afterward, that is, until there is a dogmatic decree about it. The last time that was attempted, that particular Pontiff abruptly died before he could accomplish it. That doesn’t mean it’s impossible. Here are the rules:
1. Of three equivocations, only number (2) is valid.
2. Boxes (A) and (B) are from Sacrosancta, the first decree of the fourth session of the Council of Trent. This is a dogmatic decree.
3. Boxes (C) and (D) are from Insuper, the second decree of the same session. This is a disciplinary decree which does, nevertheless, have dogmatic content.
4. (A) refers to that which God has inspired in whatever original language, Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, etc. That which is inspired is canonical. However, this is not to be found all in one manuscript, but, with the passage of the centuries, spread throughout many manuscripts, one phrase here, one there.
5. (B) refers to words and phrases used in the Latin Vulgate from the beginning until the publication of the decree. The Latin, a mere translation, is not inspired, but because of constant use by the Church, has a text which is more easily known, and can act as a sieve for the original language manuscripts.
6. (C) has the same content as that found in (B).
7. (D) does not have the same content as (B) and (C). Permission is given to print the best edition possible (see “potissimum”) to date. This recognizes that the project may be continue for a long time. [This is the sad state of the Nova Vulgata]
8. What is in (B) is a help to discover what is in (A); it would be advantageous to make good use of (B).
9. One cannot yet be sure what is in (B), as there are many manuscripts yet to consider.
10. Translations should be made only after the textual extensions of (A) and (B) have been duly studied.
11. Translations should be made from (A), noting that a correct sense of (A) can be found in (B).
/////// By the way, it’s just a coincidence, I’m sure, but it was when I was figuring all this out on the patio roof of the college at Saint Helen’s in Rome years ago that a sniper almost took me out. That makes it dramatic I guess. It never bothered me. I was on the top floor about 85 feet up, looking right at the guy:
He was across the railroad tracks in the always open roof window (427 feet away according to google maps):
Street level picture. At 85 feet up, none of the cables would be there.
He would have hit me smack in the heart. Good shooting, really. There’s a drop of quite a few feet at that range. Got out of the way just in time. A nano-second.
/////// It’s around the above treasure map that I wrote a 750 page ecclesiastical thriller (which now needs revising), Jackass for the Hour. One day… One day…
P.S. I’m sure there will be some people who will use the race-card against me, and say that all of a sudden I am racist because I don’t support certain aspects of Liturgiam authenticam. Really? Talk about tender snowflakes having a meltdown. No, I’m not against Cardinal Sarah! Take a breath!
I have demonstrated at great length elsewhere, that is, with a quite exhaustive treatment of copyists’ behavior with all known manuscripts reporting this section of Luke, that is, also in view of the actual physical copying and location of the words and letters of the planned and then (partially) given confessions in the papyri and codices (a tell-all sine qua non for this exercise)… demonstrated that the confession given before the father does NOT entirely repeat the planned confession of the prodigal when he was out with the pigs: he does NOT say, “Treat me like one of your hired servants.” His attrition when out with the pigs amounts to an analogy to fearing the loss of heaven and gaining the pains of hell when he realizes that he is starving to death but could be eating from the good will of his father. He is not sorry for having hurt his father. He is merely stating the facts of the sin and its consequences. This is good enough for him to go back. It is the judgement of the Church that this is enough for a sinner to go to confession in expectation of receiving an absolution. There is a true respect for the goodness of the father, even if this not up to level of being sorry for having offended the father’s love. The purpose of amendment is evident at least in his wanting to stay with the servants in the desire to eat the bread of his father. That this is different from the scenario above (1), is seen with the fact that he does not have an attitude that will resist the actions of his father which will bring him to full contrition. Unbeknownst to himself, he is open to having a sorrow for having hurt his father such that he will be happy to be once again the son of his father. In this scenario (2), when he goes back, his father demonstrates the love of a father for a son such that the prodigal cannot go on with the coldest part of his planned confession, that is, regarding the request to be treated like the servants. He realizes he is a son and does not want to re-offend against the love of his father. This is where the father finds him, as the father says. The son is overwhelmed with the love of his father. This is consonant with the other two parables in chapter 15 of Luke: the coin and the sheep did nothing to be found. Neither did the prodigal. The love of the father is everything in bringing the son to contrition and purpose of amendment. This is an event, not a mind-game, a provision of grace, not a mind-game, a finding of the son, not a mind game, a drawing one into the love of God, not a mind game.
ARISE! LET US BE GOING! 