Lamb of God wording

[Corki]

There isn’t a need for a clarifying document. The Interstate Commerce and the Supremacy clauses of the United States Constitution do that for the Federal Government.

That doesn’t mean that clarifying documents aren’t issued. I was working in HR when the FMLA went into effect. Since many states had exisiting family leave laws, the feds issued clarifying documents to make it clear which had precidence (state or federal) in different circumstances (FWIW, it isn’t always the same answer)

All 50 state governments would be advised by their attorneys general that they would have to conform their bidding specifications to the new law. The 50 state governments have officials who do that for them–attorneys general. Counties have county and district attorneys who keep up with that stuff (they go to seminars where they are advised of changes in the law) and inform them accordingly. Cities and towns have counsel also as do the various special purpose districts

Of course. But wouldn’t you agree that anyone doing business in this field would have a duty to know this?

The argument being made is that it isn’t the composors responsibility to know that the words they were submitting for publishing were not in compliance with Vatican directives. I say they are at least co-responsible.

I appreciate the sentiment of giving these guys the benefit of the doubt that they didn’t know. But I guess we will see what happens on Nov. 27. If the new hymnals come out and still have the wrong words, it will be hard to defend a position that anyone “just didn’t know”. They would have to have been living in caves to not know now.

 

[Warrenton]

No, not quite. It says “who take away” (or “who takest away,” if you prefer). The verb is second-person, and the subject “you” is understood: qui is the relative pronoun who-which-what, not “you” or “you who.”

I was very disappointed that this was not fixed in the new translation.

Yes; I did not know quite how to express this in contemporary English.

The problem is that the translation we use is prone to indicate the wrong message. It implies the imperative mood, especially if you could hear how they sing it: “Jesus (pause), Lamb of God (longer pause), you (elongated) take away the sins…(rapid).”

So the effect is kind of Like, “Thompson, Latin master, you translate this for us…”

I have always understood the Agnus Dei to mean: Lamb of God, [you are - understood] [the one - not needed in Latin] who take (the third person ending is needed in English
because when English speakers use the relative pronoun “who” in place of the antecedent (in this case, “Lamb”) we commonly put the verb in the subordinate clause in the third person.

Sort of like “You are the one who makes me smile” is the same as “you are the one and you make me smile.”

All in all, it seems to me that “Lamb of God who takes away the sins…” is the better translation becuase it maintains the “who” which appears in scripture, and tracks the tendency to move the verb person of relative pronons to the thrird person, as in the example.

Your thoughts?

 

[MarkThompson]

Yes; I did not know quite how to express this in contemporary English.

The problem is that the translation we use is prone to indicate the wrong message. It implies the imperative mood, especially if you could hear how they sing it: “Jesus (pause), Lamb of God (longer pause), you (elongated) take away the sins…(rapid).”

I can’t say I have ever heard it come across like that, and in English we almost never form imperatives by actually putting the subject “you” in front of the verb, except when we’re really angry; so I doubt that other people would be thinking of it that way either. But there would be no problem at all with an imperative – heck, what mood do you think “Miserere nobis / Have mercy on us” is in? Prayer in Latin and English is absolutely crammed with imperatives. If anything, the “wrong message” you propose, a request to “take away the sins of the world,” is less likely to be understood as presumptuously implying universal salvation than the parenthetical statement that “you take away the sins of the world.”

So the effect is kind of Like, “Thompson, Latin master, you translate this for us…”

I have always understood the Agnus Dei to mean: Lamb of God, [you are - understood] [the one - not needed in Latin] who take (the third person ending is needed in English
because when English speakers use the relative pronoun “who” in place of the antecedent (in this case, “Lamb”) we commonly put the verb in the subordinate clause in the third person.

Sort of like “You are the one who makes me smile” is the same as “you are the one and you make me smile.”

All in all, it seems to me that “Lamb of God who takes away the sins…” is the better translation becuase it maintains the “who” which appears in scripture, and tracks the tendency to move the verb person of relative pronons to the thrird person, as in the example.

Your thoughts?

The Agnus Dei is, actually, exactly like so many collects of the form that go “Almighty God, who led your people out of Egypt, grant that we too may …” The subordinate who clause (or “buttering-up” clause), which is technically speaking called a non-restrictive relative clause, reminds God of something nice about himself which is relevant to the petition we’re about to lay before him. But there is no need for an understood “you are” or “it is,” any more than the sentence “My car, which is ten years old, is still running fine” needs to be understood as “My car, [it is] [the one] which is ten years old …”

The problem is that it is very uncommon in English to use a relative clause in direct address in the second person. So rare, in fact, that people make the mistaken assumption you have made, in thinking that “who” must take a third-person verb since that is the only way we ever hear it. What we do in English is what the 1973 translators did with all of the collects: split them apart and turn the relative clause into its own sentence. Thus, not “Jenny, darling, whom I love deeply, believe me when I say …”, but “Jenny, darling, I love you deeply. Believe me when I say …”. Not “Heavenly Father, who have sent us your Son as a redeemer, receive these gifts …” but “Heavenly Father, you sent us your Son as a redeemer. Receive these gifts …”.

The two viable translation of the Agnus Dei are the real form, with the relative clause and its verb in the second person (“Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us”), or the 1973 chopped-up form, with no relative clause (“Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world. Have mercy on us”). What is not viable is to attempt to retain the relative clause but put its verb in the third person (“Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world …”). That’s really the worst of all possible worlds: it’s ungrammatical, and it’s not clear that it’s addressed to God rather than being a generalized and undirected statement about God.

 

[Warrenton]

The two viable translation of the Agnus Dei are the real form, with the relative clause and its verb in the second person (“Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us”)

Ago tibi gratias.

Wonder why they didn’t tackle it. The British article didn’t say.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

Do you mean to tell us that you are the one person on this planet who never had to sit through the Mass of Creation “Lamb of God”??

Interesting. We have always used the tune, but never had all the additional words. Helps me understand why everyone spits nails when they talk about it.

 

[Cindyr9]

Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.

The norms regarding the singing on the Agnus Dei are found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 83: “…The supplication Agnus Dei, is, as a rule, sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation responding; or it is, at least, recited aloud. This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words ‘dona nobis pacem’ (grant us peace).”
Therefore, as a rule, the invocations may be repeated if the rite of fraction is prolonged. But there is no mention of inserting new invocations or of prolonging the Agnus Dei as a Communion song. Thus the invocation “Grant us peace” should be said at the end of the fraction and no extra invocations introduced.