Christ has died

[mcb]

Is there any sort of debate going on in the curia, and if so, where?

Not meaning to sound snarky, Nazard, but maybe the idea that a debate of this kind should take place in the Curia is a sign of the current climate.

[nazard]

I didn't mean to suggest that such a debate should start in the curia, but it does need to end up there if it is ever going to come to anything.

[John Ainslie]

In Sacramentum caritatis, dated 22 February 2007, Pope Benedict made this observation regarding the placement of the Sign of Peace:

Taking into account ancient and venerable customs and the wishes expressed by the Synod Fathers, I have asked the competent curial offices to study the possibility of moving the sign of peace to another place, such as before the presentation of the gifts at the altar. To do so would also serve as a significant reminder of the Lord's insistence that we be reconciled with others before offering our gifts to God (cf. Mt 5:23 ff.)

Four years later, there's no sign that the 'competent(!) curial offices' have taken any notice of him. If the Pope can't initiate change in the CDW, who can?

[alan29]

Could somebody kindly parse "The mystery of faith" for me. As it stands it has all the grammatical dignity of a Sun headline.
Same with "The Word of the Lord" which begs to be completed with "Read all about it!"

[mcb]

Could somebody kindly parse "The mystery of faith" for me. As it stands it has all the grammatical dignity of a Sun headline.
Same with "The Word of the Lord" which begs to be completed with "Read all about it!"

Hmm, what about "The body of Christ", then?

Not sure, in any case, what connection a bare noun phrase has with Sun headlines. (The Sun would surely have "Faith mystery", anyway - "Faith mystery in institution narrative interpolation puzzle". Now that's a headline. )

[Mithras]

No, the Sun would probably have the priest say "Gotcha" as he puts the consecrated elements back on the altar.

[nazard]

Could somebody kindly parse "The mystery of faith" for me.

You should get it confirmed by a better classicist than me, but I think even parsing "Mysterium Fidei" in the Latin original is ambiguous in both the OF and the EF. In both it could be either nominative or vocative. In church Latin it is common, but not universal to miss out the present tense of the verb "to be", as is done in modern Russian. In that case, if it is nominative, it means in the OF, It (or this) is the mystery of faith, or in the EF, the mystery of faith is one of the things the chalice or the blood is, which of the two is not obvious. If it is vocative, then in either form it is calling out "The mystery of faith" as an address to someone, trying to catch their attention.

In latin texts of the EF it is normally printed with capital initial letters, implying that it refers to God Himself.

After reading this, you are, I assume, as puzzled as I am. It is yet another case of fix the Latin before you try to translate it. Your difficulty in parsing the phrase implies that its new english translation is meaningless, with which I concur.

[gwyn]

I think we should all get out more.

[Southern Comfort]

Could somebody kindly parse "The mystery of faith" for me.

You should get it confirmed by a better classicist than me, but I think even parsing "Mysterium Fidei" in the Latin original is ambiguous in both the OF and the EF. In both it could be either nominative or vocative. In church Latin it is common, but not universal to miss out the present tense of the verb "to be", as is done in modern Russian. In that case, if it is nominative, it means in the OF, It (or this) is the mystery of faith, or in the EF, the mystery of faith is one of the things the chalice or the blood is, which of the two is not obvious. If it is vocative, then in either form it is calling out "The mystery of faith" as an address to someone, trying to catch their attention.

In latin texts of the EF it is normally printed with capital initial letters, implying that it refers to God Himself.

After reading this, you are, I assume, as puzzled as I am. It is yet another case of fix the Latin before you try to translate it. Your difficulty in parsing the phrase implies that its new english translation is meaningless, with which I concur.

All this is precisely why no one has a clue what the words actually mean in the context in which they occurred for centuries. They didn't fit in syntactically and made no sense. My own theories run in a number of directions:

(i) the words were included as an accumulation, which is easy to understand when you look at the texts of some of the early Eucharistic Prayers, where, so caught up in the magnitude of what is taking place, the celebrant seems to pile phrase upon phrase, if not actually burble!

(ii) the words were included by accident. It is quite clear that, linked with (i), this did happen in earlier times.

(iii) this happened when someone decided to focus on the "magic moment" instead of the consecratory nature of the entire Prayer, and thus was using the expression "the mystery of faith" as an attribute for the concept of transubstantiation.

But no one really knows.

[Calum Cille]

All this is precisely why no one has a clue what the words actually mean in the context in which they occurred for centuries. They didn't fit in syntactically and made no sense.

To qualify that statement, the term "mysterium fidei" occurred for centuries in the following context.

Hic est enim «calix» sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: «mysterium» fidei: «qui» pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

This is translatable as, "For this is the «cup» of my blood, of [the] new and eternal testament: [the] «mystery» of faith: «which» for you and for many will be poured out in remission of sins." The phrase "mystery of faith", being in the nominative, does not refer back to the "new and eternal testament" which is in the genitive or the "blood" which is also in the genitive. "Mystery" therefore refers back to the previous nominative "cup" or is a substitute nominative. It does fit in syntactically.

The making of sense of the cup being "[a/the] mystery of [the] faith" is another question. The Greek of the gospel of Luke also describes the cup as being "poured out for you" and the Vulgate, significantly, obscures this. The modern catechism corrects this.

Greek: Τούτο «το ποτήριον» η καινή διαθήκη εν τω αίματί μου «το» υπέρ υμών εκχυννόμενον.
Vulgate: Ηic est calix «novum testamentum» in sanguine meo «quod» pro vobis funditur.
Catechism: Hic «calix» Novum Testamentum est in sanguine meo «qui» pro vobis funditur.

In Greek, the relative "which" refers back to the "cup", and the catechism follows this. In the Vulgate, the relative "which" refers back either to nothing in the sentence or to "testament".

With regard to syntax, there is no reason to exclude the cup being the mystery of the faith poured out in remission of sins.

[Southern Comfort]

I'm sorry, Calum, but this is only your opinion. Don't you think the experts would have told us if it had been at all clear? As it was, the leading liturgical scholars of the day acknowledged that there was no way to be sure what the words meant or how they had come to be there, and in line with SC they debated omitting them for precisely that reason. I think if they, the premier liturgists of their time, did not know, then we can safely say the same.

As it is, you have told us nothing that we did not already know about the scriptural foundations and the CCC, but of the two words themselves you have simply stated that they refer back to cup. The experts did not say this, and clearly did not think they referred back to the cup, or they would have said so instead of stating that the words were truly a mystery!

[Calum Cille]

I'm sorry, Calum, but this is only your opinion.

Southern Comfort, if you could find me any sufficiently capable scholar of Greek or Latin who would question my statements about the grammatical cases of the words I refer to in Greek and Latin and their normal syntactic applications, please do. Such things are not opinions, they are simple observations about features of morphology and syntax which are commonly taught to students of the languages concerned.

I have presented them in the same way I would present "Is i seo cailis mo chuid fala, fuil an tiomnaidh nuaidh agus shìorraidh, a dhòirtear air 'ur son-se". "Fala" (of blood) is in the genitive case. "Fuil" (blood) is a nominative, a duplication inserted into the Gaelic text as per the English which clarifies that the genitival phrase "an tiomnaidh nuaidh agus shìorraidh" (of the new and eternal testament and eternal) pertains not to "cailis" (chalice) but to "fala" (blood). Again, if you could find any sufficiently capable Gaelic scholar who would question this evident reality, please do. Likewise, in "this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant", the genitival phrase "of the new and everlasting convenant" relates back to the words "the blood", not the words "of my blood". Such things are obvious to those with an adequate grasp of the grammar of the languages concerned.

Don't you think the experts would have told us if it had been at all clear?

I am unaware that any linguistic scholar would have a problem with any of the grammatical observations I´ve made.

As it was, the leading liturgical scholars of the day acknowledged that there was no way to be sure what the words meant or how they had come to be there, and in line with SC they debated omitting them for precisely that reason. I think if they, the premier liturgists of their time, did not know, then we can safely say the same.

As I said, "The making of sense of the cup being "[a/the] mystery of [the] faith" is another question." I have only dealt with questions of grammar and syntax fairly obvious to those with an adequate grasp of the grammar the languages concerned.

As it is, you have told us nothing that we did not already know about the scriptural foundations and the CCC, but of the two words themselves you have simply stated that they refer back to cup.

I actually stated that "Mystery" therefore refers back to the previous nominative 'cup' or is a substitute nominative". This is not quite as simple a statement as the one you claim I made.

The experts did not say this, and clearly did not think they referred back to the cup, or they would have said so instead of stating that the words were truly a mystery!

"Truly a mystery" could take a very wide scope of meaning. The morphology of these words is not any great mystery, nor is the surrounding syntax. If you claim that they don´t fit in syntactically and don´t justify that statement, you should expect comment. Even if one accepts that "mysterium" here represents vocative usage (o mystery of faith!), it would still function syntactically as an interjection. Yet again, if you can find any sufficiently capable Latin scholar who could correct what I've said on this last point, please do, as I would be most surprised.

You seem prey to the notion that any opinion not expressed by what you call experts is "only someone's opinion" and, by implication, that my observations are inexpert. In this case, you have questioned the validity of my observations purely on those grounds. Such grounds sometimes have little value, since the right and wrong of any case are best established with regard to facts, not to expressed opinion alone, whether expert or otherwise. As you are clearly not expert in Greek or Latin syntax or grammar, I would appreciate it if you dealt with my observations factually, rather than implying (with no apparent justification) that I make inexpert observations and stating that they are mere personal opinion, rather than based on what constitutes general knowledge amongst those who have the expertise.

[Southern Comfort]

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Some of us on this forum have expertise in Latin syntax and indeed in linguistics generally, but that does not mean that we trumpet our knowledge abroad or disparage those who are modest about their own achievements. What is being talked about here is not elementary grammar or syntax, which many of us are extremely familiar with, but about liturgiology. We do not need basic grammar lessons (we had those years ago), we need some acknowledgement of the great wealth of liturgico-historical studies. Those who carried out (and continue to carry out) that work were extraordinarily competent in linguistics, in addition to their liturgical credentials, and the same is true today: you cannot be an effective liturgical scholar without linguistics under your belt.

[Calum Cille]

I don't think this discussion is going anywhere. Some of us on this forum have expertise in Latin syntax and indeed in linguistics generally, but that does not mean that we trumpet our knowledge abroad or disparage those who are modest about their own achievements. What is being talked about here is not elementary grammar or syntax, which many of us are extremely familiar with, but about liturgiology. We do not need basic grammar lessons (we had those years ago), we need some acknowledgement of the great wealth of liturgico-historical studies. Those who carried out (and continue to carry out) that work were extraordinarily competent in linguistics, in addition to their liturgical credentials, and the same is true today: you cannot be an effective liturgical scholar without linguistics under your belt.

You yourself raised the point about syntax. If you make the statement "no one has a clue what the words actually mean in the context in which they occurred for centuries. They didn't fit in syntactically", then I am not simply going to say, "that's your opinion": I am going to refute your statement with supportive evidence. If you think this discussion is going nowhere, it is because you confuse corrective comment on your incorrect statement about syntax with "basic grammar lessons". I think it was going somewhere, that is, to a refutation of your observation about syntax and it is now going somewhere else.

Regarding where the discussion is going now (and it is not clear from the phrase "some of us on this forum have expertise in Latin syntax" that you include yourself as having such expertise), individuals on this forum should not be discouraged from commenting on statements made by other individuals on this forum, whether these be factual errors or opinions, on the grounds that people on the forum are expert. Forum members should not discourage me from replying to points they make about syntax on this forum with comments such as, "we do not need basic grammar lessons". Points should be argued and justified on the merit of evidence, not on the merit of personal education. If a comment is made in relation to syntax, the response to the comment should be allowed to discuss syntax.

[alan29]

All way above my head I'm afraid, and missing my point. However it got to be Mysterium Fidei, and however acceptable that is in Latin, I am more bothered about why the translators should have thought that "Mystery of Faith" is acceptable as English for the most formal of situations........ but I bet you that many, many priests will elaborate it in an attempt to turn it into English.