A DISTEMPER OF LEARNING

Yes, I could have been a judge but I never had the Latin, never had the Latin for the judging, I just never had sufficient of it to get through the rigorous judging exams. They’re noted for their rigour…and so I became a miner instead. Peter Cook, “Sitting on the Bench"

As a result of this long ecclesial crisis, a great many traditionalist priests, especially American sedevacantists, have been formed at “ seminaries” that dared not impose selective admissions criteria or enforce high academic standards. Nowadays validly ordained priests are needed much more than well educated ones. Often earnest but ill-formed youngsters with little formal schooling are rushed through a diluted curriculum into holy orders and sent out to the faithful. Winnowing the chaff by insisting upon mastery of the sacred language of the Church or by administering rigorous exit examinations is an unaffordable luxury.

Therefore, in the case of Anthony Cekada, we see how present necessity has become the mother of pretension. True, Cekada is a tad better than the backward boys who attend the clerical vocational school at which he "teaches." In the end, though, he is found wanting when contrasted with the robust criteria of the past. More cunning than intelligent, Anthony sometimes, if he has his theology reference books at hand, can fool people who should know better. Nevertheless, to our great fortune, there is one discipline that always unmasks the pretender: Latin.

Over the last five months, the Reader has regularly demonstrated just how weak is Anthony’s grip on what Ben Jonson called the “queen of tongues.” Our objective has not been to shame an unfortunate who is outpaced by his ambitions and impeded forever by mediocrity. Furthermore, we know there are many worthy priests working for the salvation of souls, who cannot parse every word in the Roman Canon, construe each lesson in the Breviary, or scan the hymns of the Hours. However, WHH and others represent Anthony Cekada as a scholar. Therefore, we assert our right to contest the claim, for in order to write seriously about the liturgy and Catholic theology, one must possess more than the middling Latinity Anthony exhibits throughout his printed and electronic œuvre.

To support once again our contention that Work of Human Hands is of little value to the serious student of the reform of the Roman rite, we present here a cluster of bewildering botches to substantiate Cekada’s ineptitude as a translator, proofreader, and transcriber of Latin theological text. His gross mistakes are magnified when we consider that they all occur on the same page and are relative to the same text.

On p. 348, Cekada translates a passage from a Jesuit canonist and supplies the underlying Latin text in note 132. The first error we see is that in the footnote he prints English “not” for Latin non. (That can’t be a spell-checker intrusion.) The second is his woeful rendering of sacerdos consecrans not [read non] tantum id referat quod Christus dixerit as “the priest who consecrates not only refers to what Christ said.” Here referat does not mean ‘refers to’ but rather ‘repeats’ or ‘reports.’ Like an ignorant schoolboy, Cekada resorts to “false-friend” cognates since he does not understand the fundamental meaning of referre, viz., ‘to bring back, carry back.’

The third egregious error is twice printing what must be “sonant” as “sonat.” The first appearance occurs in the main text, as he pretentiously supplies sonat in parentheses after his translation “they signify.” (We say pretentiously because real academics supply such interpolations only where the English translation does not convey the exact sense; however, ‘signify’ [or ‘mean, express, denote’] is one of the exact senses of sonare, as even a pocket Latin dictionary will tell you.) The second occurrence is found in the footnoted citation of the Latin text.

Note that we wrote must have been because we no longer have access to a copy of volume I of the Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis for comparison. However, we do possess decent Latinity as well as a degree in classical languages from an accredited Catholic institution of higher learning (and post-graduate studies, to boot). Accordingly, we’re sure we’re right. You don’t have to be a Richard Bentley to observe that ipsa, the subject of the Latin verb meaning ‘signify,’ has a neuter plural antecedent (verba) and is therefore neuter plural, too, requiring the plural form sonant, not the singular sonat. In addition, Anthony Cekada himself supports our conjecture, because he translated the word as “they signify.” (How lovely that when he gets it right, he condemns himself!)

A legitimate question is, Why, then, do some intelligent and seemingly educated people appear to treat Cekada and WHH seriously? We’ll hazard an answer: First, they may agree with Pliny the Elder that nullum esse librum tam malum, ut non aliqua parte prodesset. One of our correspondents recently commented that Cekada’s bibliography might be useful, and we’re somewhat inclined to concur. Second, even outré personalities can naïvely stumble upon an insight or two. After all, at some time in the past, a smudged and Latin-less miner must have by happenstance unearthed a tiny nugget of thought that would strike us as valuable. The difference is that he didn’t bury us beneath a mother lode of blunders.

IMPENETRABILITY

"When I make a word do a lot of work like that," said Humpty Dumpty, "I always pay it extra."

From Reader #2

I do believe I told Anthony so. Indeed I'm sure I did at the Mad Tea Party. Any silly goose knows it would never do to write so many American col--lo--qui--al--isms. It's too ridiculous! Have you heard how Anthony's flippant regional chickens have now come home to roost?

Well, it's very provoking. A week ago, it seems, a real scholar in Europe inferred that Anthony Cekada had called him a Freemason.* Then Anthony, who isn't in the least clever at explaining words, had to tell him that "Augé and company" was an American idiom. (You know, the kind ne'er-do-well scribblers use when they try too hard to be witty rather than thoughtful). Oh, Anthony is such an unsatisfactory drudge, I declare!

Next, in a very disagreeable fit of pique, Anthony whimpered that the European scholar ignored his "evidence." I daresay in our country you generally must write seriously if you wish to be read seriously. I'm afraid Work of Human Hands is not a serious book, and its author is certainly no scholar. Why, compared to Matias Augé, Anthony appears "but as a fly by an eagle."

Well, at least Anthony begged pardon because he couldn't write Italian. Papa says he should apologize for all his blunders in Latin, too. Anthony, as Papa often repeats, is like someone who's "'been at a great feast of languages, and stol'n the scraps.'" Pity he hadn't the presence of mind to carry off some orts of the Queen's English.

*Click here

VERY SMALL LATIN, INDEED

From a sadder but wiser former Gertrudian (Cult Central, U.S.A.)

Not everyone who assisted at Cekada's cult was a Billy-Bob. There were plenty who could see through all his posturing and bluffing. He really didn't like it if someone corrected his blatant errors or challenged him on his groundless claim of being a "learned canonist."

You are right that he never saw the inside of a real college let alone a shabby night law school. And he certainly never studied at CUA or any other canon law institute. Anybody with any sense knew he was just a dabbler. He got a pass because people wanted to hear the true Mass. Period! Of course, he was still able to lord it over the great unwashed of his cult -- and that includes quite a few of the clergy who visited as well as the nervous, sad young men from that hinterland "seminary" in FL, who were pressed into service at Easter or Christmas.

Believe me when I say your reach is far wider than your hit counter indicates. Your articles are forwarded to a worldwide circle of people who are delighted to see Tony exposed. (The French are exceptionally keen on this point.) I know Europeans who love your documentation of his ignorance of Latin. Even if you're busy this quarter, I hope you can keep posting occasionally.

The Reader replies: We are not immune to kind words, so for your friends in Europe, we offer yet another case of Anthony Cekada’s estrangement from Latinity.

(Fair warning to the Checkmeister’s hollow-eyed, drooling, sallow-faced bumpkin votaries in the cyber peanut gallery: the point that follows is a subtle one, but remember that we’re writing for the bright-eyed, clear-browed, well washed select few who, like our Oct. 17 correspondent, appreciate the considerable importance of such seemingly minor details.)

On p. 323, here is how our woodenheaded Maundering Scholar translates Zerwick’s Latin (cited in note 62 as phrasis…menti nostrae [non praemonitae] excludit illam universalitatem operis redemptivi quae pro mente semitica in illa phrasi connotari potuit…):

The phrase…excludes from our thinking (if not sufficiently instructed) that universality of the redemptive work which the phrase could connote for the Semitic mind…

This is a classic example of Anthony’s reckless and really witless approach to translating Latin. He's so eager to reach an unusual (and slanted) rendering that he quite misses many obvious points in the original text. It is much more plausible and natural to regard menti as a dativus iudicantis rather than a dative of separation (i.e., of the remoter object), especially since excludere is a verb of “depriving” that prefers the ablative of separation.

Here is Zerwick’s text properly translated:

The phrase…to our (unforewarned) mind excludes that universality of the work of redemption (lit., redemptive work), which that phrase could connote for the Semitic mind (lit., which for the Semitic mind could be connoted in that phrase).

Note that in addition to over-translating the Latin original, the hapless Anthony missed bringing out the admirable contrastive parallelism of menti/mente. But of course, his poor Latin is always accompanied by a poorer sense of English style.

THE BLUNDER BOARD -- BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND

From Washington, D.C.

I'm a conservative (but not a sedevacantist) Catholic graduate student, who is professionally interested in the history of the reform of the liturgy in the 20th century. Despite Pistrina's detailed, often brilliant work in exposing all of Cekada's awful mistakes, I bought a copy of WHH. As one the Readers once remarked, sometimes even very sloppy book can contain something of value [Ed. Note: cf. July 12,

ALICE'S EVIDENCE

].

I'm not going to tell you I tossed the book out: the bibliography might be useful in a limited way. But I do wish I hadn't spent that much money on such an unprofessional volume. From reading other sites, I know some have criticized you for concentrating on errors of language, format, and style. Those individuals were well intentioned,I'm sure, but as non-professionals they don't understand that in the academic world these apparently "little matters" are signs of serious, underlying intellectual deficiencies. I can certify that no dissertation committee in any decent university would accept a text in so bad a shape as WHH. It would have to be rewritten before the chair would convene the committee again.

In closing, let me point out some "technical trifles" of publication style that would raise more than eyebrows in a mainstream educational institution. I know they look insignificant to the layman, but in the real world of the academy, such details do count (a nice application of Maritain's notion of "the power of micro-actions").

1. p. 121 (et passim), AD : In academic press style, the abbreviation for the era designation anno Domini is conventionally set in small caps (when the running text is not set in italics), to wit, ad.

2. pp. 184, 297, 321, Our Lord and/or Lady: in running text, the possessive adjective modifying the appellation is not capitalized in well-edited copy.

3. p. 223, n. 13, incipits: 1st,"incipit" meaning the opening words of a text, is considered an English word, so no italics are called for; 2nd, if the word were considered foreign, then the English plural indicator -s should have been set in plain text, not italics. Hence even though it would have been erroneous, Cekada should have printed incipits.

If these examples aren't enough to persuade some of the more literate in cyberspace to condemn Cekada's book as a sham, then maybe my next one will. In note 51 on p. 64, Cekada laughably writes, "Jungmann, of course, was an Ur-brain, if there ever was one, and it is said that Pius XII kept a copy of Jungmann's Mass of the Roman Rite on his desk." Obviously Cekada meant that Jungmann was a peerless intellect or something like that. The problem is, however, that the perfective prefix Ur- (or ur-) means "primitive, primordial, original, earliest, proto-" as in the German words "Urtext" (the earliest version of a text), "Urheimat," "Urreligion," and English-German combinations like "Ur-Hamlet," "Ur-form," and"Ur-myth." Jungmann, indeed, was a great and careful scholar, but he was not the original scholar after whom all others came. Cekada, poor wretch, tries so hard to mimic what he cannot possibly understand with his substandard education. I feel sorry -- and embarrassed -- for his ridiculous performance: a mature man by now would have learned his limitations.

*******

P.S. Whatever your motives, we're all very impressed at your Readers' mastery of Latin.

The Reader replies: Great documentation. Our Ur-Mark-Up-Copy does show that three of the Readers noted these failures. We suppose they didn't make it to publication for reasons of economy. As you well know, Anthony presented us all with an embarrassment of blunders: Soooo many mistakes ... soooo little space! BTW, you are far more charitable than we could ever be.

Thanks for the compliment, and we'll earn your continued praise by exposing another one of Anthony's errors in the language that a traditional priest should know. (We didn't have room for it in June.) On p. 320, where he cites perhaps the most important text for the traditional Catholic argument, we find the following gross misprint: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundeter (read effundetur). This is one goof that no one writing against the Mass of Paul VI should make, and its occurrence is proof in itself that Anthony Cekada has no business writing about these important matters. After all, Anthony reads and says these words almost every day of his life. How on earth did he miss that error? It's also proof that anyone who praises or defends Anthony's shallow, sloppy, and aimless drivel is either a fool or a liar (and probably both).

A REMEDY FOR CRASS PROMOTION

L MISOBLAKEIA PRESSURE

What EDUCATED readers are criticizing

about WORK OF HUMAN HANDS…

“Nowhere have I read such a slipshod and ill-written

piece of intellectual pretension and collection of empty-headed conclusions. It fairly bristles with errors of language, style, and fact. Its analyses would shame a backward ninth grader. This is just the work that Modernists need to attack the defenders of tradition as illiterate flakes.” — A Traditional Catholic Educator

“A tissue of banalities and a penance to read…I never

imagined that such bad prose, juvenile observations, and poor

scholarship could stumble into print. Many thanks to Pistrina

Liturgica for opening our eyes to so many unpardonable blunders

and offenses to Catholic learning.” — A Catholic First Professional

“Sovereign proof of authorial failure. Virtually each page

documents the author’s alienation from Thomism and

the authentic Catholic academy.” — A Catholic Writer

“Honteux! Effronterie! La République des Lettres se plaint! «Honi soit qui bien y pense!»”— A Belgian Religious

Do NOT buy it! http://www.pistrinaliturgica.blogspot.com

The BLUNDER BOARD is Baaaack-- Message 8

Ed. Note: We just got back tonight from the Holy Land, where we didn't get a chance to post last week. It was so much more edifying than Blunderland that we quite lost ourselves. But now we're back to the reality of Anthony Cekada's world of goofs, gaffes, and giggles.

From a member of Brazil's large traditional Catholic community:

I examined the accuracy of a critic at Pistrina [Ed. Note: see "Autodidact of the Credence Table"] who complained concerning «obsessive misuse» of the pronoun this. I thought he perhaps exaggerated. I was wrong. I read every page for 5 or 10 seconds. Here is what I found. Some times 1 page shows many examples. I know that more examples can exist which I did not see, but this list proves Cekada lacks education.

Page 31, 36, 38, 39, 46, 63, 74, 111, 124, 125, 133, 145, 148, 155, 163, 164, 168, 175, 180, 204, 190, 191, 202, 210, 211, 215, 216, 243, 248, 273, 280, 289, 323, 328, 329, 331, 332, 333, 334, 341, 358, 364, 365, 375

The Reader Replies: Muito obrigada. You certainly merit a reward for stamina and persistence. On behalf of traditional Catholics in the English-speaking world, I apologize: how unedifying it must be for someone brought up in a tradition that values fine writing and clear thinking to read WHH. I promise that not all traditionalist American priests are so wanting of general culture.

From the looks of it, the little ragamuffin Tony, all backward and blinking, never had the benefit of a louche and trained religious to frighten him into making sure a noun followed the demonstrative. At Pistrina, we understand that modern grammarians now allow a pointing word (demonstrative pronoun) to refer to an antecedent phrase, sentence, or idea. However, the referent must always be readily identifiable. Ambiguity is the problem with so many of the vague references that we encounter in the unreadable WHH. Had Anthony Cekada enjoyed a formal education, he would have acquired a bias for precision and worked harder to assure clear reference.

Happily, our correspondent's list affords an excuse to share outside of a special post another one of our objections to WHH: Anthony's overuse of the offensive jargon phrase as regards ("especially lame," Garner says, "when used to start a sentence"). We don't have the enthusiasm to scan every page, but we do have the notes of Reader #3, who cited the following occurrences of this much disparaged affront to good style and direct expression: pp. 282, 294, 310, 339, 356, 367,and 369.

By the by, like Ko-Ko, we are very pleased with the idea of these little lists. Let's see...

As some day it may happen that That Book won't stay unclosed,

We've got a little list--we've got a little list

Of Cekada's grossest blunders that for truth's sake we've exposed,

And that pains us like a cyst--and pains us like a cyst.

Hmmm. Do you think there's a new blog here? For starters, perhaps The Pirate of Penance or The Mc-plod-o? We're lovin' it.

PLEASE, SIR, WE WANT NO MORE

Ed. Note: As university classes resume, and the Readers get ready for fall term, Pistrina posts early this week to accommodate busy academic schedules. Staff will also take a well-deserved holiday from Fr. Cekada's Blunderland, so this longish post from a still-vacationing Reader should keep everyone entertained. We intend to post next week if we can find an internet café in the sūq, so keep logging on.

Special Post From Vernazza:

Like all Anthony Cekada’s efforts, his translation of The Ottaviani Intervention is a work that falls short of academic standards. It’s a pity that English-speaking traditional Catholics don’t have a faithful translation of the Italian original. Admittedly, Fr. Cekada’s version—which in more than a few instances approaches a paraphrase—may give you the general sense of the original, it nevertheless fails to capture many subtleties. Moreover, in many cases it seems to depend heavily on the French version, despite his intimation that the French text served chiefly to shed light on the original’s obscurities. (In our estimation, the Italian text is perfectly clear.) Notwithstanding Father's patently obvious attempt to mislead, we’ve known since we read the 1992 edition that what he produced is essentially an often very free translation of a translation.

When his revised translation came out, we compared it to Italian and French versions found online. We recognize that the analyses we’re about to undertake may be trying inasmuch as they focus on linguistic technicalities. For our readers’ sake, we’ll cite only one example to illustrate that this little book is as sloppy and unreliable as Anthony Cekada’s other monstrous failure, Work of Human Hands.

In the cardinals’ covering letter to Paul VI, the online Italian text we found (http://www.unavox.it/doc14.htm) reads:

…il Novu[s] Ordo Missæ, considerati gli elementi nuovi, suscettibili di pur diversa valutazione, che vi appaiono sottesi ed implicati, rappresenta…un impressionante allontanamento dalla teologia cattolica della Santa Messa…

(Literally:…the Novus Ordo Missae, after considering the new elements — susceptible to different assessment indeed [pur] — that appear underlying and implied therein [vi], represents…a striking estrangement [or removal] from the Catholic theology of the holy Mass...)

Here’s how Anthony Cekada translated the passage:

…the Novus Ordo Missae—considering the new elements susceptible to widely different interpretations which are implied or taken for granted—represents…a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass…

At first blush, the attempt doesn’t look too bad for an amateur. In fact, the addition of dashes was really a good idea (though we may quibble with their placement). Yet, a closer look is surely in order. In Father’s translation, the relative clause “which are implied or taken for granted” appears (by position and punctuation) to modify the word “interpretations.” However, if we examine the Italian original, we see that the phrase che vi appaiono sottesi ed implicati (‘which appear there underlying and implied’) refers to the plural elementi, for the word Father translated as “interpretations” is singular in the Italian (valutazione). In Fr. Cekada’s translation, the relative clause might modify either “elements” or “interpretations,” a definite stylistic error in spite of his boast in the Technical Notes, that he endeavored to avoid “obscure pronoun references” (p.78).

For comparison, here’s an online French version (http://www.salve-regina.com/Liturgie/Bref_examen.htm):

…le nouvel ORDO MISSAE si l'on considère les éléments nouveaux, susceptibles d'appréciations fort diverses, qui y paraissent sous-entendus ou impliqués, s'éloigne de façon impressionnante…de la théologie catholique de la Sainte Messe…

(Literally:…the new Ordo Missae, if one considers the new elements, susceptible to very different assessments, which appear understood or implied therein [y], deviates [or is estranged] in a striking manner…from the Catholic theology of the holy Mass...)

As you can see, the French text is far from a slavish translation: its does away with the verb rappresenta (‘represents”) and reworks the direct object (‘represents a striking estrangement’ becomes ‘deviates in a striking manner…’). No problem. In fact, as a translation, we mark it A+. (Kudos likewise for the substitution of ou ‘or’ for ed ‘and.’) It’s apparent that if Fr. Cekada had any feeling for his own language (or a better formal education), he should have taken his cue from the French version in order to avoid the flat virtual copula “represents” of the original.*

By relying so much on the French version Father gets himself into trouble: in aping the French slight over-reading of fort diverses, he subtly alters the meaning of the original. He further compounds his difficulties by retaining the plural reading (appréciations) of the Italian singular valutazione. By so doing, he couldn’t see that the relative clause qui y paraissent sous-entendus ou impliqués (“which appear are understood or implied there”) should in fact modify éléments. For the record, we’ll stipulate that the original sentence is complex, and Father did well to ignore the French fidelity to the original’s sentence structure by breaking it into two English sentences. (The splendid periodicity of the 87-word sentence in the Italian must surely have been Bacci’s contribution.) In addition, the French choice of the plural (appréciations) may have obscured the true antecedent. (But note that the French version translated the adverb vi and inserted a comma, and Anthony Cekada didn’t.) Hence, here is an instance where Anthony Cekada should have relied on the original, not the French, to clarify the meaning.

As we have seen since early June, Fr. Cekada just can’t get anything right. When he tries to be pretentious (in this case by bragging he used the Italian original and a French version for clarification), he convicts himself of not knowing when to rely on the original and when to use the translation. All in all, he’s an unlucky and ungifted dilettante, whose every effort to appear learned blows up in his face. His lot is to entertain pretensions that will forever outpace his limited ability to perform. If his ignorance were not so hurtful to his own cause, we’d call him the Oliver Hardy of the traditional movement. However, we think he’s more like Bumble the parish beadle.

* A vigorous English rendering, then, would be “the Novus Ordo Missae…differs strikingly…from the Catholic theology of the Mass...” Yes, we’re fine with suppressing “holy” for a more idiomatic English rendering. We aren’t urging absolute literalness: that’s unliterary. We want accuracy, not hyper accuracy, and decent prose faithful to the original’s intention.