In what sense can Catholics say that the Son "left" the Father?

[Blind_Didymus]

I recent came across an English translation of the Latin hymn Pange lingua gloriosi proelium (Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle) where the 4th verse included the line, “This world’s Maker left His Father”. This was printed in a Catholic work, albeit there was no nihil obstat printed in the front of it.

Being a former Protestant, I’m aware that the Church teaches that the Son was not separated from the Father on the cross (as many Protestants suppose). However this translation appears to teach that the Son was separated from the Father at the incarnation instead.

Could someone please provide an authoritive source on whether it is theologically acceptable to say that the Son “left” the Father in order to incarnate? Thank you.

The full verse of the translation reads as follows:

Wherefore, when the sacred fullness
Of th’ appointed time was come,
This world’s Maker left His Father,
Sent the heavenly mansion from,
And proceeded, God Incarnate,
Of the Virgin’s holy womb.

 

[JerryZ]

When we say that Jesus did not separate from the father we assume we are speaking about Jesus the Son of GOD person in the sense that GOD is everywhere HE does not stay in 1 place although we picture HIM seated on a Throne. But that image is for our sake not of GOD’s, as HE does not have a body. Now Jesus in HIS human form did separate Himself from the Father again we use language to convey the image. In the Credo we say He came down from Heaven and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate in the Virgin Mary. In the Credo we also say that everything, both visible and invisible was created because of HIM (Jesus). So in essence the words of the Credo are recalled but not exactly the same words. Hope this helps.
Peace!

 

[Dovekin]

It is a less than perfect translation.

missus est ab arce patris

Sent from the Father’s home is a more literal reading though I stripped out some nuance.

“Left for us His Father’s home” is the John Mason Neale translation used by Wikipedia.

 

[BartholomewB]

@Dovekin has already explained it. The translator is here rendering the Latin words, missus est ab arce patris, literally “was sent from [the] father’s arch”, i.e. from the heavenly vault that is his Father’s dwelling place. The Incarnation is seen as a move from heaven to earth.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Thank you for saying that the translation is less than perfect. But what I’m seeking to establish is whether it is a translation acceptable to Catholic theology at all, or if it should be considered an accidental lapse into the heretical teaching that the Son was separated from the Father. Is there some authority which could clarify such a matter please?

How does Percy Dearmer’s translation compare with John Neale’s?

Copies of Dearmer’s translation may be found at:
https://hymnary.org/hymn/NEH1985/page/179
https://hymnary.org/hymn/CPAM2000/page/259

Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle, Sing the ending of the fray (Dearmer) | Hymnary.org

 

[McDale721]

One should not confuse poetic language for theological statements. You always have to start with the genre before you can analyze.

 

[Blind_Didymus]

So are you saying that’s it’s acceptable for Catholics to say that God the Son is a separate deity to God the Father provided one does so poetically?

 

[27lw]

Catholic hymn lyrics and their confusing statements of theological truths is quite a can of worms. I’m not sure there are good answers to be found.
The USCCB seems to cut Catholic hymn publishers a lot of slack, and that’s been going on for…oh…50 years or so now?
But, just for kicks, what hymnal did you find it in? Year of publication? Who is the translator? Publisher?

 

[BartholomewB]

This was printed in a Catholic work, albeit there was no nihil obstat printed in the front of it.

If you think you have detected heresy, the people to complain to are the publishers of the hymn book.

 

[porthos11]

Thank you for saying that the translation is less than perfect. But what I’m seeking to establish is whether it is a translation acceptable to Catholic theology at all, or if it should be considered an accidental lapse into the heretical teaching that the Son was separated from the Father. Is there some authority which could clarify such a matter please?

How does Percy Dearmer’s translation compare with John Neale’s?

Copies of Dearmer’s translation may be found at:
The New English Hymnal page 179 | Hymnary.org
Common Praise: A new edition of Hymns Ancient and Modern page 259 | Hymnary.org
Sing, my tongue, the glorious battle, Sing the ending of the fray (Dearmer) | Hymnary.org

It could be taken as an accidental lapse into heresy, but as with a lot of hymns it can be given an orthodox interpretation. Jesus “left” his Father insofar that the divine Person in his human nature was “separate” in that he was on earth and had not yet “gone” to his Father. In his human nature he still had to ascend. But in his divine nature, it would have been impossible to be separated from the Godhead, hence, St. Thomas Aquinas’ line: “The Word proceeding forth, yet not leaving his Father’s right hand.”

 

[Blind_Didymus]

Thanks for the tip

 

[Genesis315]

But what I’m seeking to establish is whether it is a translation acceptable to Catholic theology at all,

I think in a vacuum that English phrase is certainly open to unacceptable interpretations. However, Christ, when on earth, spoke of His Father being “in Heaven” and that Jesus “came down from Heaven”
and He speaks of His ascension as going to His Father:

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”

So if His ascension can be stated as Him going to the Father, His coming to earth can be stated as Him leaving Heaven and His Father still being in Heaven, then I think the sentence is fine. This does not mean the Godhead was divided or that God is not omnipresent.

 

[Usagi]

Certainly not. But it is acceptable to say (as even the Creed does) that the Son “came down from Heaven” even though we understand that the Trinity was never literally divided.

 

[Usagi]

The OP is quoting from (a translation of) Pange lingua, by St.Thomas Aquinas. This is not some airy-fairy recent hymn.

 

[Dovekin]

The USCCB seems to cut Catholic hymn publishers a lot of slack, and that’s been going on for…oh…50 years or so now?

It appears hymn publishers have been cut “a lot of slack” for several hundred years, to judge by Dearmer’s translation that we are discussing. (Percy Dearmer died in 1938 according to one of the links)

That Jesus was sent by the Father does not imply any separation between the two. Jesus sends the disciples to the ends of the earth in Matthew 28, and ends the charge “I am with you always.”

We say “Our Father who art in heaven” but we say it to someone who is close enough to hear us.

Distance does not mean the same for God as it does for us, so “I and the Father are one” is true no matter what the distance. Jesus was sent from the Father’s place, but not away from the Father.

 

[porthos11]

The OP is quoting from (a translation of) Pange lingua, by St.Thomas Aquinas. This is not some airy-fairy recent hymn.

No, this is not St. Thomas Aquinas. This is a more ancient hymn called Pange lingua gloriosi praelium certaminis, by Venantius Fortunatus d. around AD 609.

 

[McDale721]

No, I’m saying don’t confuse poetic language with theological statements. Don’t try to create a theological argent out of it. If you don’t start with recognizing, this is poetic language and understanding what the artist is trying to convey, you might as well not even start.

 

[27lw]

Yeah but the translation is more recent right? Than 609? Translations can vary in meaning and word choice s lot.
Okay, I had no idea when this particular translation was published, but I think everyone can agree that there has been more theologically iffy stuff in hymnals in the past 50 years.

 

[porthos11]

Yeah but the translation is more recent right? Than 609? Translations can vary in meaning and word choice s lot.
Okay, I had no idea when this particular translation was published, but I think everyone can agree that there has been more theologically iffy stuff in hymnals in the past 50 years.

John Mason Neale died in 1866.

 

[Usagi]

Ah, thank you.