Gentlemen: I draw your attention to an error on page 174, note 56, which confirms that Fr. Cekada has no linguistic feel for liturgical terminology, viz. antemensium.
The Reader replies: We consulted our shared copy of WHH, and no Reader had marked this huge blunder. We know that our cursory inspection of this bad book did not uncover all its wrongheaded errors, so we're grateful for the discoveries of others. Keep 'em comin'!
We agree the blunder is not an editing oversight. As you now know, Anthony Cekada doesn't have enough Greek and Latin to understand the underlying meaning of liturgical terms of art. The correct spelling is antimensium (the Latinized form, as in Jungmann vol. I, p. 253) or antimension (the transcription from the Greek). The word means "[the thing] instead of a mensa (lit. a table) " or "[the thing] in place of the flat stone top of a consecrated altar."
Our pitiable author doesn't know the difference between the Greek ἀντί (anti ='over, against, opposite, instead of, in place of, as good as, equal to, for the sake of') and the Latin ante ('before'). We understand how easy it is for an amateur to confuse the form with antependium (altar frontal), the plural of which appears in Jungmann a little later on p. 257.
I have read other pieces by Fr Cekada and was referred to your blog as a refutation of the contents of his critique of the New rite of Mass, so far I have not found any criticisms and refutations,but mistakes in Greek and latin vocabulary. My feeling is that when it comes to sarcasm and youthful humour (of which you accuse him) you are doing pretty well yourselves. Now, can we have the real refutation and demolition of all his ideas, namely that the New Rite of Mass is a dilution and diminution of Catholic faith ?
ReplyDeleteAlan Robinson
Alan,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comment. Our mission, however, is to demonstrate that WHH is a very poorly executed book that does not represent a material, scholarly contribution to the debate about the Novus Ordo Missae. We have focused on technical errors so that everyone, regardless of persuasion, can see that Fr. Cekada's efforts are not serious and do not count.
The Reader
I'm afraid I have to agree with "warrior300": the lack of critique of substantive arguments made by Fr. Cekada is a disappointment. No doubt Father should have avoided errors of usage and grammar, but to me it seems that the matter at hand is too important to dismiss on solely linguistic grounds, v.g. "Hogwash" is slang unacceptable in a scholarly work.
ReplyDeleteCapreolus,
ReplyDeleteWe would agree that the issue of the validity or invalidity of the Novus Ordo Missae is one of the most important of our time. It demands that the best trained minds on both sides of the argument engage in reflective, well-reasoned expert discourse. The careless editing, adolescent voice, pop-culture tone, and multiple errors of fact have impeached any confidence we might have in the conclusions Father draws. Indeed, we have focused on linguistic and editorial blunders because language and its display on the printed page are the first signs whereby we judge the intellectual credibility of a work. In this case, Latin and Greek are of particular significance because their mastery is necessary for sound liturgical and theological studies. BTW, we will be posting in a few weeks a comment related to the cloying superficiality of many of Father's "conclusions," which make it difficult to take seriously the speculative content of WHH.
The Reader
As a schoolmaster I have to listen to my many boarding students, whether they articulate their problems well or badly and I feel it my duty to try and treat them seriously. Surely, if you are setting up a website/blog about W.H.H., you should avoid the superficial and easy criticism of language,vocabulary and style and "go for the jugular"(sp.????); in other words,tell us where is theology and liturgical principles are wrong. This is far more important,I would have thought than whether he's got the anti/e mension (???) wrong or not, or a spit infinitive or hanging participle.I speak as one who is, sadly,unable to attend daily Mass in the Old rite & goes to the New Rite of Mass almost every day. Thanks
ReplyDeletefor your comments. ALAN ROBINSON