A RECENT THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION^]
When it first appeared in 1952, Dr. Ludwig Ott's GrundrissderKathoHschen
Dogmatik was widely acclaimed and was translated into many European
languages. In May, 1955, it was translated by Dr. Patrick Lynch and
edited by James Canon Bastible, D.D., under the title Fundamentals of
catholic Dogma. Three years later, a second edition appeared and the
editor, in a foreword, noted that "Dr. Ott's work has appealed not only
to priests and religious but to a very wide circle of layfolk." In this
article, we shall attempt to assess the value of this English translation.

Two problems, however, confront us. Firstly, we have not been able to
procure a copy of the German original and consequently we have been
forced to make a comparison between the French translation, precis de
rhéologie Dogmatique published by Salvator-Casterman in 1955
(subsequently referred to as F) and the English translation of BastibleLynch (subsequently referred to as E). The reader will be left to draw
his own conclusions concerning the value of the English translation on
the basis of this comparison.
Secondly, the number of discrepancies between the translations is so
great that we have been obliged to limit our detailed comparison to a
mere ninety pages (E.352-415) which cover the Sacraments in
general, and the special treatment of Baptism, Confirmation and the
Blessed Eucharist. Even within this narrow scope, we can select only a
few of the very many discrepancies.

We may divide our analysis into two main sections. The first concerns
patent errors which are found in E; the second details passages which
are extremely obscure and ambiguous in E and which are presented
clearly and logically in F.
A. ERRORS

E.329, line 25ff : "This may be seen, in particular, by the
use of the prepositions 'out of . . . and 'through' . . . and
(in Latin) by the use of the ablative of instrumentality and
of the dative." F concludes the sentence as follows: ". . .
by the use ... of the dative or (in Latin) of the ablative of
instrumentality." Clearly, distinction is made between
Greek which expresses instrumentality by means of the
dative, and Latin which employs the ablative.

E.335, line 22: This contains a mis-translation of St.
Thomas: 'cuius sacerdotio' is translated 'to whose
character.'

E.337, line 9f: "Holy Scripture attests that Christ
immediately instituted the Sacraments of Baptism,
Eucharist, Penance and Consecration." Consecration is not
among the seven sacraments instituted by Christ. It seems
clear that E has translated 'Weihe'(Orders or consecration)
by a meaning which is unwarranted by the context.

E.337, line 32ff: Under the thesis: "Christ fixed the
substance of the sacraments. The Church has no power to
alter them," we read: "It follows from the immediate
institution of the Sacraments by Christ that their substance
is immutably fixed for all time. The institution of a new
Sacrament would involve a substantial change." The
context is not directly concerned with the institution of new
sacraments but with the question of substantial change in
the seven. F translates the final part of the passage
logically as: "Change of the substance would be equivalent
to the institution of a new sacrament."
E.337, line 40ff: "Whether Christ ordained the matter and
form of the sacraments specifically (in specie) or in general
(in genere) is a matter of controversy, that is, whether He
laid down the specific nature of the Sacrament or whether
He merely gave the idea of the Sacrament in general and
left the closer determination of the matter and form to the
Church." All theologians agree in affirming that Christ laid
down the specific nature of the Sacrament (i.e., its
purpose and the graces conferred in it). F is correct
theologically when it declares the matter of controversy to
be whether or not Christ laid down "the specific nature of
the sacramental sign" (i.e., the visible rite).
E.338, line 31: "For the existence of seven Sacraments a
seven-fold proof can be adduced." These are then
enumerated as 1. Theological Proof; 2. Proof from
Prescription; 3. Historical Proof; 4. Speculative Foundation.
The rest fail to appear. F invokes a "triple proof," adducing
the first three and citing the speculative proof merely as
theological reasoning.

E.345, line 16f: "The intrinsic ground is this that the
Sacraments receive their grace of conferring power." E
obviously means their power of conferring grace.

E.354, line 7ff: "By a decision of Alexander III (1159-81),
rejecting a proposition of the Belgian theologian F.
Farvacques, by a decision of Alexander VIII (1690), and by
the declaration of the Decretum pro Armenis . . ."
Alexander III lived 500 years before the Belgian
theologian. F. correctly reads: "According to a decision of
Alexander III (1159-81), according to the condemnation of
a proposition of the Belgian theologian F. Farvacques by
Alexander VIII (1690) and according to the declaration . .

E.383, line 15: Emmanuel Maignan is designated O.Min.
However Maignan was not a Franciscan as this title would
indicate, but of the Order of Minims (0.Minim.) as F rightly
indicates.
E.387, line 32ff: "That the worship of Latria is due to the
Eucharist may be shown directly from Holy Writ in that, on
the one hand, the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist,
on the other, the right of Christ to adoration, are indicated.
. . ." This can scarcely be called a direct proof. F correctly
designates this proof as indirect.
E.392, line 1 Iff : "In Christian antiquity ordinary, that is
leavened, bread was used also in the Eastern Church (St.
Ambrose, De Sacr. IV, 4, 14: panis usitatus)." F correctly
reads "in the West."

E393, line 16f: ". . . to the whole prayer of thanksgiving,
which is contained in the narrative of the institution."
Obviously, it is the prayer of thanksgiving which contains
the narrative of institution.
E.394, line 20f: "the recipient, the grapes into which the
supernatural life of grace flows." F reads, in line with the
normal interpretation of the allegory of the Vine, "the
branches into which . . ."
E.396, line 33ff: "Supported by St. Augustine (sic!), St.

Thomas teaches that, according to the intention of the
Church, baptized persons should desire the Eucharist,
since Baptism is directed towards the Eucharist, which
perfects the work of Baptism, i.e., incorporation into the
Body of Christ. S. Th. Ill, 73,3." E. misunderstands St.
Thomas completely. The latter teaches not that the
baptized should desire but that objectively they do desire
the Eucharist in virtue of their Baptism. F gives the correct
interpretation of St. Thomas.

E.405, line 19f: "the play upon words in Mt. 5, 23 et seq."
In this passage there is no question whatever of any play
on words. F correctly reads "the allusion to Matthew."
"Anspielen" means to play or to begin to play: "anspielen
auf" means simply to allude to!

E411, line 17f: "The theory (i.e., the Mystery Theory of
Dom Casel) was rejected in 1947 by Pope Pius XII in the
Enc. 'Mediator Dei'." This theory was not so much as
mentioned by the Encyclical. F reads "The Encyclical
'Mediator Dei' seems contrary" to it. The difference is
considerable!

B. OBSCURITIES

E.331, line 17ff: "But while these older theologians
attributed to the Sacraments a physical causality in respect
of the disposition mentioned, Billot ascribed to them an
intentional causality, that is, they have the power of
designating and communicating a spiritual conception."
The latter phrase makes no sense whatever. F reads: ". . .
Billot attributes to them an intentional causality, i.e., that
they have the power of designating and communicating a
spiritual disposition." This is a faithful presentation of
Billot's theory. Furthermore, in the critique of the various
systems of sacramental causality, E omits any reference to
moral causality, though F treats it along with the other
theories.
E.335, line 29: The sacramental character distinguishes

"the consecrated from the non-consecrated." The religious
is a consecrated soul, but is not distinguished from others
by means of a character. E. really means "the ordained
from the non-ordained."

E.336, line 40ff: "Christ would have instituted the
Sacraments mediately only if He had left the determination
of the sacramental operation of grace and of the
corresponding outward sign to the Apostles and to their
successors." It is fairly clear that E has translated
"Wirkung' (effect or operation) by a meaning unwarranted
by the context. F reads ". . . the determination of the
supernatural effect of each sacrament. . . ."
E.337, line 46ff: "The declaration of the Council of Trent . .
. on the other hand, seems to favour specific institution, as
the expression 'Sacraments,' according to the proximate
sense, designates the concrete substance, that is, matter
and form. ..." F reads ". . . because the expression
'substance of the sacraments' designates directly the
concrete substance, that is, matter and form. . . ."
E.339, line lOff: "This is shown in its liturgical books, in its
declarations at the Union Council of Lyons . . . and in its
official confessional writings." F makes the last phrase
clear: "in its official professions of faith."

E.339, line 17ff: "The Patriarch Jeremiah II of
Constantinople answered the Tubingen Professors ... in
association with Simeon of Thessalonica. . . ." Simeon died
in 1429, 150 years before this answer was given. F
translates ". . . resting on Simeon of Thessalonica."
E.342, line 36ff: "As an instrument is effective in virtue of
its principal cause, so the efficiency of the Sacrament is
independent of the subjective constitution of the minister"
(who is only the secondary ministerial cause). E confuses
efficiency with efficacy. F reads: "so the efficacy of the
sacrament is independent...."
E.343, line 44ff: "Subjectively regarded, an actual
intention is that disposition of the will which is present
before and during the whole action, but such a disposition
is not indispensable." Even objectively regarded, an actual

intention may be so defined. F is clear: "From the
subjective point of view, the ideal is an actual intention,
i.e., that disposition of the will which exists before and
during the entire sacramental function; but it is not
necessary."

E.346, line 8: ". . . obstacles to grace are lack of faith and
unreadiness for penance." It seems clear that E slavishly
translates the word 'Unbussfertigkeit which means simply,
as F indicates, impenitence.

E.348, line 3ff: "The Old Testament Sacraments wrought,
ex opere operate, not grace, but merely an external lawful
purity." Lawful means what is permitted; legal, what is
according to the prescriptions of the law. F reads legal.
E.354, line Ziff: ", . . Baptism was administered in such a
manner that the person baptizing, in association with the
apostolic confession of faith, proposed the threefold
question of faith to the person being baptized. ..." F
reads ". . . baptism was conferred under this form: the one
baptizing thrice proposed to the one being baptized,
conjointly with the recitation of the Apostles' Creed, an
interrogation on the faith. . . ."
E.372, line 13ff: ". . . the Fourth Lateran Council (1215)
officially proposed the doctrines ... of the exclusive
consecration-power of the validly consecrated priest." F
reads: ". . . the exclusive power to consecrate of the
validly ordained priest."
E.377, line 40ff: "In association with the words of
institution he concurs with the older Church tradition in
expressing belief in the Real Presence." F reads: "Resting
on the words of institution . . ."
When we examine the English translation from a purely
literary viewpoint, we feel no little alarm at the thought of
the book falling into the hands of an educated non­
Catholic. Looseness of construction and grammatical errors
abound. "The formal numeral seven presupposes a welldeveloped concept of a Sacrament," says the author
(E.338, line 26). "Necessity is what cannot not be" (E340,
line 3) is hardly English. "Quite apart from the validity of '

the notions," notes E (409, line 19f), when he really
means, "Quite apart from the question of the validity."
"Multifold" (E.385) and "equiparation" (E.405) are certainly
not found in the Concise Oxford Dictionary. We may also
note a lack of consistency in the manner in which E
designates persons and places, e.g., on page 381 we read
St. John Damascene; over the page it becomes St. John of
Damascus, and a little further down the same page St.
John Damascene appears again.

Let us repeat: the errors and obscurities, we have noted
are but a selection of those to be found in ninety pages of
the English translation. With regard to the passages
mentioned—and those left unmentioned—F is consistently
accurate and logical, while E is consistently inaccurate or
obscure.
The patient reader of these remarks has, therefore, two
choices before him: either the English translation is a
faithful reproduction of the original German, and the
French translation has corrected the inaccuracies and
rendered startlingly clear the obscurities of the original; or
the English translation is a grave distortion of the original
work of Dr. Ott. Given the first alternative, we wonder why
anyone should bother to translate so inaccurate and
obscure a work; or why the French translation makes no
mention of alterations made to the text.

Our own view is that the English translator has done a
grave disservice to Dr. Ott and to the English reading
public.
CAMILLUS HAY, O.F.M.,
St. Paschal's College, Box Hill, Victoria.

From: "Br. Alexis Bugnolo"[i] editor@franciscan-archive.org
To: "John Loughnan" jloughnan@hotmail.com

Subject: Re: Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma - and other
files
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2001 10:18:45 -0500

Dear Mr. Loughnan,

Thank you for this notification.
I was particularly interested in the critique of Fr. Ott's book
in English; since I used it for a TV series.

Yes, there are errors, evidently; but these are stuff for
corrections in a new edition; none of them are so major as
to lead someone who knows theology awry. I am surprised
that Fr. Hay does not point out that Fr. Ott opposed the
Co-redemption; this is a major fault.

On this point, there are a number of Theological errors in
the English edition:
E:211, line 31 "Although Christ is the Sole Mediator
between God and Man ..." and again at E 212: 5th line
from bottom "sole Mediator" is FALSE, for the Greek in 1
Tim 2:5 is "eis" (cf. The Interlinear Greek-English New
Testament, Alfred Marshall, Zondervan, 1958, p. 823)
which means "one" in the sense of "first" (cf. Mt.
28:l;Analytical Greek Lexicon, Samuel Bagster Publishers,
1967, London, p. 119) not in the sense of "only" or "sole",
which in Greek is "monos" {cf. Mt. 14:23, 18:15, Lk
10:40, Jn 17:3 etc.; Analytical Greek Lexicon, Samuel
Bagster Publishers, 1967, London, p. 272)

E 212: penultimate lines: "she could not of herself merit
the grace of the redemption of humanity in accordance
with the principle: Principium meriti non cadit sub eodem
merito) .. " This is erroneous, for on this basis Christ's
Immaculate Human nature which was the condition for the
Incarnation was itself meritied by Christ as The Word upon
the Cross. The error consists in not distinguishing that
what Christ merited for all, even Himself, is the basis for
His title as Redeemer; but that the basis of Mary's title as
Corredemptrix is not all, strictly speaking which Christ
merited —Mary did not merit what Christ mertied for
Himself and for Her—but rather all which Christ merited for

humanity, excepting Himself and Her.

E 213: lines 25 ff. Ott attempts to subvert the doctrine of
Pope St. Pius X by saying "The statement of Pope Pius X in
the Encylical "Ad diem Ilium" (1904): (Beata Virgo) de
congruo, ut aiunt, promeret nobis, quae Christus de
condigno promeruit (D 1978 a) (The Blessed Virgin merits
for us de congruo what Christ merited de condigno) is, as
the present tense "promeret" shows, not indeed to be
taken as referring to the historical objective Redemption,
which occurred once and for all, but to her every-present,
intercessory co-operation in the subjective redemption."

This is FALSE on two points: first "promeret" (She merits)
is in the present tense not to refer to the present, but
because of the indirect discourse introduced by "ut aiunt"
(as they say), which Ott conveniently omits from his
translation. Also "promeruit" (He merited" is in the perfect
tense on account of the subordination of this clause to that
of "promeret", and hence according to Latin grammer
signifies the same time for the action, not a prior time,
which would take the imperfect tense, cf Theotokos: A
Theological Encyclopedia of the BVM, Michael O'Carrol,
CSSp, Michael Glazier Publ., Wilmington, Delaware, p. 307,
which translates "promeruit" with the present tense).
Finally, his argument that "She merits" refers to Mary's
present meriting for us as intercessory, is illogical,
contradictatory and absurd, since merit is only possible to
wayfares, i.e. those who still live in this world.
Furthermore L. Ott is silent about the teaching of Pope
Benedict XV, "Inter Sodalicia", when he writes "so that we
may well say that with Christ She redeemed mankind." If
co-redemptrix meant only mediate and remote
cooperation, one could scarecly say that "She redeemed
mankind" in a "well" said manner.

As for Fr. Hay's critique of the use of English ""Necessity is
what cannot not be" (E340, line 3) is hardly English"

This is entirely false, in my opinion as a translator of
scholastic theology.

You may, if you desire, post my comments on the co­
redemption at your site; for the honor of the BVM.
Sincerely in Christ,
Br. Alexis Bugnolo

Jan. 26, 2001

Dear Brother Alexis,

I am most grateful for your message and for the matters raised.
I have no idea whether Fr. Hay was aware of those matters, but he
seemed to have been of the opinion that the book contained many
more errors. In fact he states: "...the of discrepancies between the
translation is so great that we have been obliged to limit our detailed
comparison to a mere ninety pages...which cover the Sacraments in
general..."
Thus the errors in respect of Our Lady were in a part of the book not
covered in his critique.

It is interesting, however, that Dr. Ott himself was wanting in respect
of the coredemptrix - an aspect of which I was unaware, and I thank
you for bringing it to my attention. I am afraid I am woefully ignorant
on so many important matters.
Thank you also for granting permission, "for the honor of the BVM", to
post your comments. I will gladly add them.

With kind regards and God bless you,
John