Southern Comfort wrote:Calum, I suggest you read the following, for starters: ... and then come back and tell us why an essentially simple view of Latin syntax should take precedence over the scholarship of the above-named gentlemen.
Despite my previous clarification, you still seem to be continuing to labour under the misapprehension that I have proposed that any view of Latin syntax can decide ultimate meaning in this particular case. For the third time, as I said, "The making of sense of the cup being "[a/the] mystery of [the] faith" is another question."
Southern Comfort wrote:To give just one example (extracts from Bugnini, quoting the subcommittees of Consilium Working Group 10):
The addition "the mystery of faith" in the formula for the consecration of wine in the Roman Canon:
— is not blblical;
— occurs only in the Roman Canon;
— is of uncertain meaning and origin. The experts themselves disagree on the precise sense of the words. In fact some of them assign the phrase a quite dangerous meaning
<snip>
— interrupts the sentence and makes difficult both its understanding and its translation
<snip>
This quotation provides no discussion of the syntax of the sentence in question and is therefore of no help in a discussion of whether or not the phrase "mysterium fidei" does "fit in syntactically", as you put it. The quotation provides no support for what you have stated about the syntax and, equally, contradicts nothing of what I have written in response to your statements.
Supplying a list of names of 6 books (or even 16 books) and their authors with page references is not equivalent to making an online case to support your original statement. I have no need to read such material as the statements I have made about the grammar of the sentence being discussed could only be considered incorrect by someone either insufficiently skilled in the language, or having insufficient grasp of the difference between questions pertaining more properly to syntax and those pertaining more properly to semantics or pragmatics. You still have not presented any justification for dismissing my assessment of the grammar and syntax of the sentence in question.
In response to your suggestion, I suggest you read the books you've mentioned yourself and scour them for any such invalidation, as the above paragraph is insufficient for that purpose. Again, if you can find any Greek or Latin scholar who could invalidate any of my comments about the grammar of the sentence under discussion, please do. I would be extremely surprised to find any authoritative statement which disagreed with my rather obvious observations (I say obvious, but I mean, obvious to anyone sufficiently capable of discussing the ins and outs of Greek grammar, which you are either incapable of doing or unwilling to do). However, I will not take you up on your suggestion to pore through the above materials as I greatly suspect that they will be in general agreement with my own observations presented here, as the above quote from Bugnini is. I am willing to discuss what would seem to you to be any apparent disagreement, as you evidently made this quote because you viewed it as somehow in disagreement with something I have said previously.
