Glory Be Prayer Changed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tpraines
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tpraines

Guest
I was always taught: Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end.

We have a local prayer group that is encouraging others to use the following words, “Glory to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and will be forever.”

The literal Latin is still something different (“ages and ages”), so which is correct? Who would be the final authority on this here in the United States? USCCB? Or maybe it doesn’t matter and we are free to use whatever words we are comfortable with considering our own ethnic roots?

I just didn’t want to change because the prayer group leaders said to do so, without some authority to say its okay.
 
40.png
tpraines:
I was always taught: Glory Be to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and ever shall be world without end.

We have a local prayer group that is encouraging others to use the following words, "Glory to the Father, and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now and will be forever."

The literal Latin is still something different (“ages and ages”), so which is correct? Who would be the final authority on this here in the United States? USCCB? Or maybe it doesn’t matter and we are free to use whatever words we are comfortable with considering our own ethnic roots?

I just didn’t want to change because the prayer group leaders said to do so, without some authority to say its okay.
Click to expand...
The words used by the local prayer group is from the “Glory Be” that is found in the Liturgy of the Hours . These are the prayers that priests, bishops and many religious pray daily.

Fr. Bro.
 
Interesting observation! I didn’t recall that translation in my Liturgy of the Hours, so I checked! My Liturgy of the Hours, Divine Office published by Universalis Publishing Ltd states, “…is now, and ever shall be, world without end.”

I think it must be a translation issue, did your Liturgy of the Hours originate from a spanish speaking country or did your order originate from a spanish speaking country?

I understand that the superior of your order can set the rules of the order, but what about the rest of us? Does the USCCB have a spot for approved english translations?

I am still confused and want to do what is right? Are there other translations and acceptable versions of the Lord’s Prayer? Who determines what is acceptable?
 
I brought this up recently in a slightly different contex, because in some places it has been mis-translated as “Praise the Father, Sone, etc.” (Gosh, no one ever misrepresents anything by a tendentious translation into English, or oversimplifies the Latin for the sake of playing to the least common denominator. :rolleyes: )

However, the Latin “Gloria Patri” has no verb in the first sentence at all and is equally well represented by “glory be to the Father” and “glory to the Father.” In spite of that, what the motivation was for changing the traiditional English form in the first place is beyond me.
 
If you read almost any prayer that has been translated from Latin or another language (for example the Memorare or the Prayer to St Michael the Archangel or St Francis of Assisi’s prayer) you’ll find variations in the translation. They may be better or worse translations, but unless they really totally get the meaning wrong they’re all acceptable.

The Our Father, being used in the Mass, everyone naturally follows the translation used in the Mass. I believe some Protestants say ‘forgive us our debts’ rather than ‘trespasses’ and ‘debtors’ instead of ‘those who trespass against us’. This is a little less wordy and a bit closer to the literal Latin ‘debitoribus’. However, different translations of the Bible will word it slightly differently.

The Hail Mary, being used in the Rosary, again a common wording has evolved. I don’t think, apart from the texts used for purposes of the Mass and other official celebrations, there is such a thing as an ‘official’ English version of any of these prayers.

When these prayers are used for private devotion, slight variations on wording absolutely do not matter, except that in group situations it’s desirable to have everyone saying the same thing. Why on earth the group would be promoting one version over another is beyond me.
 
It just makes it difficult to pray common prayers together. For example, here in NZ some Bishops have their diocese use a different translation of the Our Father at Mass - and some don’t.

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.

Amen

When we have Nuptial or Requiem Masses the priest usually indicates which version is to be prayed so it doesn’t become a shambles.

I think Pope B XVI is right to ask us to learn them in Latin so we can all prayer as one.
 
Eileen T:
It just makes it difficult to pray common prayers together. For example, here in NZ some Bishops have their diocese use a different translation of the Our Father at Mass - and some don’t.

Our Father in heaven,
hallowed be your name,
your kingdom come,
your will be done,
on earth as in heaven.
Give us today our daily bread.
Forgive us our sins
as we forgive those who sin against us.
Save us from the time of trial
and deliver us from evil.

Amen

When we have Nuptial or Requiem Masses the priest usually indicates which version is to be prayed so it doesn’t become a shambles.

I think Pope B XVI is right to ask us to learn them in Latin so we can all prayer as one.
Click to expand...
I quite like the line ‘save us from the time of trial’ rather than ‘lead us not into temptation’ (which makes it sound like all temptation comes from God rather than the devil).

Other than that, it doesn’t bother me that not everyone prays using the exact same words, even in the Mass. Unity does not have to mean uniformity.
 
Thank you, this is all very helpful.

I have asked C.A. for clarification through the Apologist (sp?) Line, so I will let you know.

I vaguely recall this coming up on a call in show and I remember Jimmy Akin, basically said we were stuck with the Glory Be although it is acknowledged that the translation is poor since the world will indeed end.

Thanks
 
Someone at my church likes to pray it during our group rosaries as “Glory be to God in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.” Is this OK? Sounds a little like Modalism to me.
 
40.png
LilyM:
If you read almost any prayer that has been translated from Latin or another language (for example the Memorare or the Prayer to St Michael the Archangel or St Francis of Assisi’s prayer) you’ll find variations in the translation. They may be better or worse translations, but unless they really totally get the meaning wrong they’re all acceptable.

The Our Father, being used in the Mass, everyone naturally follows the translation used in the Mass. I believe some Protestants say ‘forgive us our debts’ rather than ‘trespasses’ and ‘debtors’ instead of ‘those who trespass against us’. This is a little less wordy and a bit closer to the literal Latin ‘debitoribus’. However, different translations of the Bible will word it slightly differently.

The Hail Mary, being used in the Rosary, again a common wording has evolved. I don’t think, apart from the texts used for purposes of the Mass and other official celebrations, there is such a thing as an ‘official’ English version of any of these prayers.

When these prayers are used for private devotion, slight variations on wording absolutely do not matter, except that in group situations it’s desirable to have everyone saying the same thing. Why on earth the group would be promoting one version over another is beyond me.
Click to expand...
Very good points. English is not the only language that has this problem, nor is it a recent problem. The French say and have always said “Priez pour nous, pauvres pecheurs” for “ora pro nobis peccatoribus.” In other words, “Pray for us poor sinners” instead of “pray for us sinners.” The word “poor” does not occur anywhere in the Ave Maira.

Years ago I heard older people at daily Mass, obviously distraught, replace the “holy” in the respond to the “Orate Fratres,” which was eliminated in the current rite. Unfortunately, they replaced it twice. Thus we got “for the sake of his holy name, for our good and the good of all his holy Church.” Well, of course, the second “holy” is there in the Latin but the first is not. It was not exactly an offense that would exclude the saintly ladies from Heaven (in my opinion), but it does indicate the preposterous extent of the problems introduced by a vernacular Mass in the first place, and then a hideous one like the one we got.
 
40.png
tpraines:
Interesting observation! I didn’t recall that translation in my Liturgy of the Hours, so I checked! My Liturgy of the Hours, Divine Office published by Universalis Publishing Ltd states, “…is now, and ever shall be, world without end.”

I think it must be a translation issue, did your Liturgy of the Hours originate from a spanish speaking country or did your order originate from a spanish speaking country?

I understand that the superior of your order can set the rules of the order, but what about the rest of us? Does the USCCB have a spot for approved english translations?
Click to expand...
This is the LOH translation prepared by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy and approved for use in the US (even India and Canada and certain other nations but not the UK) as confirmed by the Apostolic See (Catholic Book Publishing Company, NY: 1976).

I’ve never checked out Universalis. What translation is it using? Is it the one for the UK? I’d be interested to know. Thanks.
 
Per the Universalis website, “The Mass readings and the Liturgy of the Hours are those of the Catholic Church and their content is the same as in the Latin edition of the Liturgy of the Hours published by the Vatican.” It goes on to say, “After the major reforms of 1970, some additional revisions were made to the Liturgy of the Hours in 1985. Many English editions of the Liturgy do not yet include these revisions, because it would be so expensive to reprint the books; but the second Latin edition does. The following are the main changes, as summarised in the decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship dated 7 April 1985:…”

It also states that the Office they used was published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company:1985 edition.

So should we update to the 1985 version or use your 1976 translation?

Another website stated that the actual ‘official’ english versions of the LOH is published by the Vatican (but I could not find that list) but it went on to say that list is so very short and that basically as long as something abusive was not brought to the attention of the USCCB or Vatican then it was permitted.

Come on guys, this is the Catholic Church (my mother) surely there is a rule about this or some authority that says yeah or nay. I yield to those much smarter than me! Am I being scrupulous? (sp?)

Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut…
 
40.png
tpraines:
Per the Universalis website, “The Mass readings and the Liturgy of the Hours are those of the Catholic Church and their content is the same as in the Latin edition of the Liturgy of the Hours published by the Vatican.” It goes on to say, “After the major reforms of 1970, some additional revisions were made to the Liturgy of the Hours in 1985. Many English editions of the Liturgy do not yet include these revisions, because it would be so expensive to reprint the books; but the second Latin edition does. The following are the main changes, as summarised in the decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship dated 7 April 1985:…”

It also states that the Office they used was published by the Catholic Book Publishing Company:1985 edition.

So should we update to the 1985 version or use your 1976 translation?

Another website stated that the actual ‘official’ english versions of the LOH is published by the Vatican (but I could not find that list) but it went on to say that list is so very short and that basically as long as something abusive was not brought to the attention of the USCCB or Vatican then it was permitted.

Come on guys, this is the Catholic Church (my mother) surely there is a rule about this or some authority that says yeah or nay. I yield to those much smarter than me! Am I being scrupulous? (sp?)

Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut…
Click to expand...
I really parsed the language at the site and cannot find the basis for the Universalis translation of the Latin text anywhere. It does say in its FAQs section, “However, there is a limited list of official translations, and the one we use is not one of those: accordingly, the site cannot receive official approval.” So I’m confused as what they did or did not use. I couldn’t find the reference to using the 1985 Catholic Book material. (I don’t doubt it’s there, I just couldn’t find it.)

The content may be following the official Latin text, but the translation isn’t necessarily official at Universalis.

As the LOH is an official liturgical text, the translation depends on the approval of the episcopal conference with some kind of review (read approval) from the Holy See (c. 826, 838). We clergy will need to hold on to what we have for now (and the 4 volumes are not cheap — but there is a shorter one volume that permanent deacons may use since they are not obliged to the whole of the office.)

I consulted with a few people though. For private and informal use, we would not see a problem for someone not bound to the LOH to use Universalis. Though, the official one volume is around $30. (catholicbkpub.com/ONLINE_CAT/DETAIL/b_detail.asp?IM_ISBN=0899424066&MC_ID=CM)

Better to pray with Universalis, if you don’t have an official text, than not to pray the divine office at all. We need your prayer and thank you for it.
 
Just got off the phone with a staff apologist. I will paraphrase: For private prayer, you may use whatever prayer you wish or even change words of the prayer so much that you really make it your own prayer without much fuss. Public liturgical worship however is subject to the liturgical norms of the diocese, canon law, etc. If you were to desire a change to a particular prayer during Mass, you would need USCCB permission.

So I came away from my phone call with the following: If ## the lay movement of ## (or any other movement or group) wanted to say “forever and ever” in accordance with their movement, then they can do so without permission. They should however understand that the prayers as they are stated for public liturgical worship are acceptable and should not be privately “corrected” through their members praying it out loud with different words at Mass or some other “grass roots” popular movement efforts within the parish, etc. Their desire for correction should be handled with humility and patience and presented to the bishops.

I am cautious of groups that ask their members to be “good” catholics and correct others who use other “incorrect” translations. I am sure this group leader overstepped her role and misspoke her intentions in an attempt to bring about unified prayer within the group at its weekly meetings.

I do like the idea of just getting back to the Latin and solving this whole issue. But I only know about 8 words of Latin, so I would have some work to do!

TKC!
 
It really is basically a bad translation of en secula seculorum which has the sense of “forever”, but “world without end” seems inadequate as it raises the confusion that we know our world will end. I have not seen the original reference, but I’ve also heard that the “world without end” translation was by Henry VIIIth. (!)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top