A philological response to Michael F. Duddy's 'Answering the Validity Question: A response to the allegation that the Novus Ordo Missae is invalid' Article 2.
By a Classical Scholar
Before I begin this brief critique, allow me to set forth my credentials: I hold a PhD in Classical Philology from a reputable University, with a Double Major in Latin & Classical Greek. The reader, however, need not rely on my authority alone in deciding on the validity of Duddy's Latin exegesis; because of the way I have written this response, it will be possible for the reader to verify what I allege here with other competent authorities.
It may be stated here categorically that a reading of Duddy's article will demonstrate to any competent, professional Latin scholar that Duddy is an amateur Latinist, with a seriously deficient knowledge of the workings of the Latin language. For this reason, the reader's attention should be drawn to the following conclusion: none of Duddy's arguments, if based solely on his deeply flawed and incompetent Latin philology, should be accepted. It is significant that Duddy himself in his response to Bishop Pivarunas (1) claims that his refutation of the invalidity thesis was based largely, if not principally, on philological considerations. He thus unwittingly condemns some of the major arguments of his own article, since it will be shown here conclusively that Duddy's Latin philology is seriously deficient.
'Although Bishop Pivarunas begins his article by informing his readers correctly that I have "extensively parsed" the Latin text of the Catechism of the Council of Trent, he never explains to them what it was that I specifically parsed, and what the outcome of that parsing was. He never tells them that certain statements in the Catechism – statements which he had previously used, and, as such, were absolutely vital to his proof for the invalidity thesis are irrefutably demonstrated by the parsing of those texts to be incorrectly translated and falsely utilized. As a result, those texts are no longer of any value to a defense of his position.'
I produce below a catalogue of specimen sentences selected randomly from Duddy's Article 2. Those sentences with asterisks are particularly egregious for their demonstration of Duddy's ignorance. None of the sentences so marked is based on sound philological principles. I urge any reader who is impressed by Duddy's article to submit the text of the Catechism (given on p. 7 of Duddy's article – but beware of the typographical error, on which, see Notes at the end!) and any of Duddy's texts listed below, particularly the critical sentences with asterisks attached to them, to the perusal of any Latin professor at any reputable college or university. Let the reader ask that professor whether Duddy's sentences (again, in particular those with asterisks attached to them) could have emanated from the pen of someone fluent in Latin. Let the reader not be surprised when the professor so questioned replies that Duddy's philological explanations are seriously flawed and display colossal ignorance of Latin idiom and of some basic principles of Latin grammar – with the result that they could not in any way have emanated from the pen of one trained even only in the basic rudiments of the Latin language.
1. A largely irrelevant distinction (comprehendi can in this style of Latin according to context mean either consists of or consists in)
'A preliminary point that must be made here is that I don't know where Omlor came up with the translation of “consists OF” as neither the Mc Hugh & Callan nor the Donovan rendition says “consists OF. Both say “consists IN.”'
2. What fluent reader of any language ever does what Duddy says is necessary here?
'To arrive at the intended meaning of any given word at least two things are necessary. The first is to compose a list of all the possible meanings that could be even remotely possible in the subject matter being discussed.' [My emphasis]
3. 'Often'? How can any reader read any text intelligently without understanding, whether implicitly or explicitly, the grammar underpinning the text he is reading? This is a sentence written by a beginner in Latin language studies.
'Finally, in the case of a verb, it may often be necessary to consider how the verb is parsed in order to help rule out the likelihood of one possible meaning versus another.'
4. Here Duddy demonstrates his ignorance of Latin in a particularly triumphant and spectacular fashion: If passive is found in one language, passive must also be in the translation language! Forget differences of idiom – welcome to Kellys Keys School of Latin translation! (This egregious piece of idiocy is repeated and expanded upon on at p. 11 of Duddy's article) Note also that he tells us the tenses of the infinitives – as if this helps his argument! On the contrary, these gratuitous bits of information are there simply to astound his naive readers with his rather slender and insubstantial Latin learning
***'The translation rendered as “consists” by both McHugh & Callan and Donovan is rendered by them in the Present Tense, Active Voice, but the Latin verb form “comprehendi” is the Present Tense, Passive Voice. Now if “consist” be the intended meaning here, it should have to be rendered into English as “the form is consisted,” not as “the form consists.”'
5. Basically the same point as above:
– Duddy is deceived by the case uses in Latin and erroneously thinks they must be analogically reproduced in English! Genitive cannot be used here, contrary to what he suggests is possible, and 'consists of' can be translated in Latin with a verb with Ablative!
– Not Ablative of Respect or Specification; to call it Ablative of Means is inexact – more precisely, Ablative of Material.
***'Also, the translation rendered by Omlor as “of these words” does not correctly reflect the Latin phrase “his verbis” which is the Ablative case (not the Genitive) and would have to be rendered either as “with these words” or “by means of these words” (Ablative of Means) or as “in these words” or “with respect to these words” (Ablative of Respect or Specification).'
6. No, Latin cannot represent 'of these words' in the expression 'consists of these words' by means of the Genitive. Nor could it have used the Accusative, because a passive verb (comprehendi) in Latin ordinarily cannot take a direct object.
***'(If the Latin wished to have said “of these words” it could have employed the Genitive case for the prepositional phrase “ of these words” or the Accusative case by making the preposition part of the verb, and the phrase “these words” as a direct object.)'
7.
– not comprehendere but comprehendi here = consists!
– the 'awkwardness' and 'grammatically incorrect expression' found in Duddy's nonsensical 'literal translation' arise only because of Duddy's incompetence in construing the Latin.
– the literal translation that he supplies is not inevitable according to Omlor's style of translation; the trouble arises because Duddy fails to see that Latin usage and idiom do not follow English; simply because we say 'consists of' does not mean that we must use the Genitive; nor because we find his verbis in the ablative, must we necessarily have to translate as 'with these words'. Another amateurish and incompetent explanation.
***'Thus, if “comprehendere” = “consists” as the intended translation, then the overall literal translation must read “the form is consisted with these words” (ablative of means), - a very awkward and grammatically incorrect expression, or “the form is consisted in these words” (ablative of respect), - another very awkward and incorrect expression.'
8. Vain appeal to authority. Here he cites the Oxford Latin Dictionary as an authority to decide the meaning of a word in his text. Unfortunately for Duddy, he seems to be ignorant of the fact that OLD, an Archaic, Classical, & Silver Latin dictionary, explicitly excludes Christian texts from the ambit of its coverage. (2) Although the Catechism is written in a neo-Classical style, it contains innumerable unclassical usages, of which comprehendi used in the sense of 'consists in, of' is one. It is about as useful to consult OLD as an authority for a Christian Latin text, as it is to consult Liddell & Scott's Classical Greek-English lexicon to decide the meaning of some modern Greek word which is identical to a Classical Greek word in form, but not meaning.
'That having been said, let us now investigate all the potential meanings of the verb “comprehendere” as listed in the Oxford Latin Dictionary.'
9. No surprise here. Duddy is delighted to find a typically unclassical meaning for a Latin word is not given in a Classical dictionary. It's about as interesting a discovery as finding no explicit testimony of belief in transubstantiation in the Anglican Church's 39 Articles.
– componere is not a usual verb to express consist; the usual verbs to express the notion 'consists of/in' are: constare, consistere, contineri, teneri.
'The first thing we notice is that the meaning “consist” isn't even mentioned. This is not to say that “comprehendere” can never be used as a synonym for “to consist,” but the verbs normally used to indicate “consist” are usually “componere” or “consistere.”'
I could continue listing instances of Duddy's embarrassing incompetence in Latin, but the above list selected from sentences on pp. 8–9 of Duddy's Article 2 ('Exegesis of “Comprehendi his verbis”') is more than sufficient to settle the matter. If someone told you that all English verbs end in –ed in the simple past tense, you would think his grasp of the English language to be very weak indeed, and you would not think much of anything else he said about the English language. Duddy's magisterial dicta on the Latin language in his magnum opus are of the same order of ignorance. No one who has even only a moderately good command of the Latin language could have uttered any of the statements listed above to which asterisks are attached.
In concluding, I'd like to point to one particularly damning piece of evidence of Duddy's shoddy scholarship. I recall having come across other instances in the Catechism of the Council of Trent in which comprehendi is used in the sense 'consist of / in'. But Duddy, either because it never occurred to him to look for other instances of comprehendi, or more likely, because he can't read Latin, hasn't seen any instances of comprehendi in the Catechism, except that single instance pointed out to him from Part II, Ch. 4, Q. 21. If he saw other instances used in a similar way, he would see that his translation 'included in' is in this context quite impossible. Let us give him one instance and start him on his way. In the preface to the Catechism, we read this sentence:
Illud igitur primum videtur esse, ut semper meminerint, omnem Christiani hominis scientiam hoc capite comprehendi, vel potius, quemadmodum Salvator noster ait : “Haec est vita aeterna, ut cognoscant te solum verum Deum, et quem misisti Iesum Christum.”
'It seems to be, then, the first thing, to remember always that all knowledge of the Christian man consists in this, or rather, as our Saviour says, “This is life everlasting, to know Thee, the only true God, and the one whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ”.'
According to Duddy's exegesis, the Latin text would seem to imply that Christians are not required to strive to know the true God in the full sense of the word, since the sum of Christian knowledge is only included in the knowledge of the true God and Jesus Christ; quite possibly there are other things the sum of Christian knowledge is included in, such as the breeding of donkeys, and the ten best hands in poker.
I would be happy to find and supply Duddy with more instances of comprehendi in the sense of 'consist of / in' in the Catechism, if I did not believe that he ought to spend more time searching the Catechism and reading it, and less time writing. May the Good Lord have mercy on us all.
Easter Saturday, 2007
Notes:
1. http://pdfdownload.tsone.info/pdf2html.php?url=http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/novusvalid2.pdf
2. Publisher’s Note, p. vi: 'A proposal that the Dictionary should be extended to include Christian Latin had been finally rejected in 1951.'
Also pay heed to the following instances of incompetence:
p. 5, l. 8] 'preemptory [sic!] reading'
p. 7, l. 2] 'TESTAMENT' – quoted as being in the Latin form for the consecration of the wine! The typographical error is repeated on p. 11!
p. 11, l. 10] 'forman' for 'formam'
Such typographical (?) errors (many more may be found) point again to the carelessness with which Duddy's article was written.
Home