OME ARE REFERRING to the (supposedly) forthcoming LECTIONARY as the “Wuerl Lectionary.” We can only assume this epithet was adopted because in 2012, Donald Cardinal Wuerl was the one who announced this (allegedly) forthcoming LECTIONARY. Specifically, Cardinal Wuerl said: “The biblical scholars responsible for the revision will be sensitive to pastoral, doctrinal, and liturgical considerations as they produce a draft.” Cardinal Wuerl’s announcement contradicted the USCCB Secretariat of Divine Worship, which on 11 November 2011 declared: “There is no plan to do a major revision of the Lectionary at this time.”
Mystery People • Those who have followed our series (which we’ve called: “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”) will have undoubtably detected an idée fixe. We keep asking: “Who is responsible for this?” For instance, Cardinal Wuerl mentioned “biblical scholars responsible for the revision”—what are their names? Who selected them, using what criteria?
Horrible Track Record • In previous articles, we made mention of a reprehensible effort that took place during the 1990s. Male words were changed to ‘inclusive’ words. For instance, in Psalm 77, we find: patres nostri narravérunt nobis; non sunt occultáta a fíliis eórum. In 1991, they changed patres (“fathers”) to “ancestors” and they changed fíliis (“sons”) to “children.” Furthermore, references to God as “he” or “him” were bowdlerized. Because of such items, Rome forced several USA bishops to withdraw their IMPRIMATUR. In an April 1996 letter, Cardinal Ratzinger referred to “an unacceptable manipulation of the texts of sacred scripture” in the proposed Psalter.
(1 of 2) Repugnant Sensibilities • We don’t claim that scripture translations can never be improved, especially if they help the average American comprehend what’s being said. For instance, in Psalm 77, we find this sentence: Apériam in parábolis os meum; loquar propositiónes ab inítio. In 1949, Monsignor Knox translated that as: “I speak to you with mysteries for my theme, read the riddles of long ago.” He avoided “I will open my mouth” to eliminate a HEBRAISM. As Knox put it:
‘Mr. Churchill then opened his mouth
and spoke’— is that English? No, it is
Hebrew idiom clothed in English words.
The Douay-Challoner version has: “I will open my mouth in parables: I will utter propositions from the beginning.” The word propositiónes becomes “propositions” … is that competent translation? To an educated Englishman, treating cognates with such ‘ruthless exactness’ is a rookie mistake.
(2 of 2) Repugnant Sensibilities • But those who run the various shell corporations—which falsely claim copyright over the mandated texts—exhibit quite a ‘repugnant sensibility’ when it comes to language. For instance, Psalm 77 has: Panem angelórum manducávit homo. Some Hebrew texts, for the word angelórum, do not have “of angels.” Instead, they have “of the mighty.” Monsignor Knox suggests “of angels” was probably meant—but it isn’t for us to advocate one version or the other; either is defensible. But look what the shell corporations came up with in 1991:
“All ate a meal fit for heroes.”
Would any Catholic defend such a translation of panem angelórum manducávit homo? Any reference to the word homo (“man”) seems to have caused those in charge of the shell corporations to become hysterical. Are these the same people who will be revising the WUERL LECTIONARY?
Incidentally, the 1994 ICEL psalter translation (which was judged heterodox and had its IMPRIMATUR revoked by Rome) translates that verse as:
“They ate a giant’s portion.”
That tawdry translation was produced under people like Peter Finn, who started at ICEL in 1974 and (at least as of 2020) still “continues as a consultant.”
Psalm 77 • Several times (above) we’ve used examples from Psalm 77. We will conclude today’s article with one more. We have mentioned how various shell corporations have been illegally selling the mandated texts for the Mass. What they claim are “translations under copyright” are no such thing. In a previous article, we mentioned that the psalm ‘translations’ were mainly stolen from Father Cuthbert Lattey. Consider the following example:
Psalm 77 (Vulgata)
Apériam in parábolis os meum;
loquar propositiónes ab inítio.
Now look at the so-called “Abbey Psalms and Canticles” (which is actually identical to the Twice-Revised Grail Psalter):
Psalm 77 (Abbey Psalms)
I will open my mouth in a parable
and utter hidden lessons of the past.
We see that they have basically ‘borrowed’ or ‘stolen’—without giving credit—the 1939 version by Father Cuthbert Lattey:
Psalm 77 (Father Lattey)
I will open my mouth in exposition:
I will pour forth the hidden lessons of the past.
They eliminated “pour forth,” changing it to “I will utter”—which they stole from the Douay-Challoner translation. For the most part, there wasn’t any translation done; all they did was make Father Lattey’s translation more colloquial. For instance:
Psalm 77 (Abbey Psalms)
He remembered they were only flesh,
a breath that passes, never to return.
Psalm 77 (Father Lattey)
He remembered that they were but flesh,
A breath that passeth and returneth not.
(2 of 2) Conclusions • There’s an old saying: “Personnel is policy.” With regard to the WUERL LECTIONARY, who is in charge of this project? What specific criteria have they adopted? More importantly, the ‘profits’ they have been collecting by selling the sacred texts were procured fraudulently. What is their specific plan to return all the money?
To be continued.
ROBERT O’NEILL
Former associate of Monsignor
Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt
at Boys Town in Nebraska
JAMES ARNOLD
Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge
A convert to the Catholic Church, and
distant relative of J. H. Arnold
MARIA B.
Currently serves as a musician in the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte.
Those aware of the situation in
her diocese won’t be surprised she
chose to withhold her last name.
