Sanctus, Sanctus Sanctus

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hugh_Beaumont
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hugh_Beaumont

Guest
Being old enough to remember my altar boy Latin, the opening to the Canon of the Mass was the Sanctus, viz.,

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth

When we first went to the English translation (circa 1964?) the words were recited as:

Holy, holy, holy
Lord God of hosts…

Then somewhere along the line it was changed to:

Holy holy holy Lord,
God of power and might.

Now that we’re (almost) back where we started from, one would expect that we would revert to the original. But no. Now we have something very strange. Instead of pausing after the third “holy” it has become one continuous line.

Holy holy holy Lord God of hosts.

Nobody seems to be able to separate the word “holy” from “Lord”. I wish the priests who are old enough to remember would emphasize the pause between the third “holy” and “Lord”.

Next project - How about going back to the original for the Domine non sum dignus?
“Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.” That, “but only” is just so drab.
 
Hugh_Beaumont said:
Nobody seems to be able to separate the word “holy” from “Lord”. I wish the priests who are old enough to remember would emphasize the pause between the third “holy” and “Lord”.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I notice that all the time.
 
I suggest we consult with a liturgical scholar, or perhaps a Hebrew scholar (since the Sanctus comes from Isaiah 6:3).
 
Here is the current translation for the Roman Rite (note: no comma before Lord):

“Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of hosts. Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.”

Here is the Latin from the 1962 Missal (note: no comma before Dominus):

“Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria tua: Hosanna in excelsis. Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini: Hosanna in excelsis.”
 
“Sanctus” can be an adjective, so I don’t see any cause to put a pause in there except for literary/musical reasons.
 
You can play games with commas and adjectives all you want, but I remember how it was recited in those days. There’s also a hymn which confirms that there was an abrupt stop after the third “Holy”. (The first Holy is “do”, the second “me”, and the third “sol”. “Lord” is “la”.)
 
This seems to be a matter of language/grammar. If you are using adjectives to describe something/someone, why would you need to have a pause between an adjective and the subject? “Look at the big cat.” not “Look at that big, cat.” Likewise, “He has an old, red, rusty car.” “That was a long, long time ago.” “Wow, what a deep, deep, deep drift of snow!” We never put a comma between the last adjective and the subject or demand that people pause between the adjective and subject, right?

I think it better to have there be no pause since we’re directly addressing the Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts, not just saying holy, holy, holy, to the Lord.
 
Hugh_Beaumont said:
You can play games with commas and adjectives all you want, but I remember how it was recited in those days. There’s also a hymn which confirms that there was an abrupt stop after the third “Holy”. (The first Holy is “do”, the second “me”, and the third “sol”. “Lord” is “la”.)
Click to expand...
I’m not denying that it was once recited like that. In fact, I’m quite curious as to why there was a pause between “Sanctus” and “Dominus”, considering the text before me doesn’t indicate in any way that there should have been.

I’m not saying it’s right or wrong since I really don’t know. I’d really like to consult a liturgical expert.
 
Hugh_Beaumont said:
Being old enough to remember my altar boy Latin, the opening to the Canon of the Mass was the Sanctus, viz.,

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth
Click to expand...
Sabaoth is supposed to be a very powerful and meaningful word in the Hebrew, so much so it was retained in the ancient Latin Mass for centuries. IMO no translation into English would do it justice. It is my understanding that the priest is perfectly free to use the Latin/Hebrew at any Mass.
 
From my copy of the Douay-Rheims:

Isa 6:3 And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory

Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures had each of them six wings: and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.
 
Hugh_Beaumont said:
From my copy of the Douay-Rheims:

Isa 6:3 And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory

Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures had each of them six wings: and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.
Click to expand...
From the Clementine Vulgate (the first has a comma and the second has no comma):

Isaiah 6:3 Et clamabant alter ad alterum, et dicebant: Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus exercituum, plena est omnis terra gloria eius.

Revelation 4:8 Et quattuor animalia, singula eorum habebant alas senas: et in circuitu, et intus plena sunt oculis: et requiem non habebant die ac nocte, dicentia: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus Dominus Deus omnipotens, qui erat, et qui est, et qui venturus est.
 
Hugh_Beaumont said:
From my copy of the Douay-Rheims:

Isa 6:3 And they cried one to another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, the Lord God of hosts, all the earth is full of his glory

Rev 4:8 And the four living creatures had each of them six wings: and round about and within they are full of eyes. And they rested not day and night, saying: Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God Almighty, who was and who is and who is to come.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the celebrant of the Holy Mass is reading from the Missale, where there is no comma. Assuredly I’m not to believe that many priests inserted a pause because there was a comma in the English translation of the Bible verses where the Sanctus is derived?
 
Hugh_Beaumont said:
Nobody seems to be able to separate the word “holy” from “Lord”. I wish the priests who are old enough to remember would emphasize the pause between the third “holy” and “Lord”.
Click to expand...
This is a myth. Or rather, it is a myth that it makes any sort of difference. This can be seen by comparing, for instance, the Sanctus from the Gregorian Masses I (Lux et origo, here) or XVIII (Pro defunctis, here), which have no such pause, with Mass III (Deus sempiterne, here, short pause) or Mass VIII (De angelis, here, longer pause). In other words, there is simply no “old” or “previous” way of doing it.
 
I guess the only solution is for us to start singing it in Latin 😃
 
GangGreen said:
I guess the only solution is for us to start singing it in Latin 😃
Click to expand...
Code: 
The problem exists in Latin too.  I Believe the triple adjective is  this most ubiquitous form of the superlative in many language though not  necessarily in Latin. (Holy, holier, holiest).  yet  I think the rhetorical function here is Vocative, - vocative, - adjective and it is  therefore  justified linking the third "holy" to Lord.
A more awkward structure for many is shared by Latin Mass XVIII and the New Missal Mass in English: the very first note is alighted and unaccented yet the text (the syllable (“Ho-” or Sanc-" here is accented. The next syllable ( “-ly” or “-tus”) is unaccented yet bears an accented musical structure of two notes resolving on the tonic) This requires a delicate execution and a sensibility to lightness of chanted accents and the the relative duration of the notes following it as a relaxation of the accents energy.
 
Enim said:
The problem exists in Latin too. I Believe the triple adjective is this most ubiquitous form of the superlative in many language though not necessarily in Latin. (Holy, holier, holiest). yet I think the rhetorical function here is Vocative, - vocative, - adjective and it is therefore justified linking the third “holy” to Lord.

A more awkward structure for many is shared by Latin Mass XVIII and the New Missal Mass in English: the very first note is alighted and unaccented yet the text (the syllable (“Ho-” or Sanc-" here is accented. The next syllable ( “-ly” or “-tus”) is unaccented yet bears an accented musical structure of two notes resolving on the tonic) This requires a delicate execution and a sensibility to lightness of chanted accents and the the relative duration of the notes following it as a relaxation of the accents energy.
http://cburrell.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/sanctus-eng.jpg
Click to expand...
Good analysis.
 
This is one of my husband’s problems with Latin hymns that are occasionally used in the OF of the Mass. The translations printed alongside the Latin are not correct.

It’s not just a comma. It’s blatant mis-translation. I took some Latin in school, and my husband has a minor in linguistics and is very well-informed about etymology of words. It’s obvious that the Latin hymns in our missallettes have translations that are “paraphrases,” not translations.

This bothers both of us.

I used to sing the English words softly whenever Latin hymns were sung because I don’t like singing words that I don’t understand, but now, I don’t sing at all. Many times, Catholics on CAF point out that those of us who don’t like Latin can follow along with the English translation . But not if it’s incorrect!

So I just stand there and try to think about Jesus. And I don’t attend the weekly benedictions in our parish. This situation with the paraphrases bothers me that much. I don’t know why the publishers don’t simply print an exact translation instead of a paraphase. Or print the exact translation so we know what the Latin means, AND print the paraphrase so we can sing along (sometimes exact translations don’t fit the music).

I think one reason this bothers me is because it causes me to doubt the accuracy of ANY of the “translations” of ancient Catholic documents and writings into English . Apparently, even though Latin is unchanging, the translations DO change over time, and I’m not sure what to trust. This is disturbing to me after my very bad experiences in the Protestant church (my family was kicked out of our Evangelical Protestant church) with sola Scriptura. Just being honest here, people. 😦
 
Cat said:
This is one of my husband’s problems with Latin hymns that are occasionally used in the OF of the Mass. The translations printed alongside the Latin are not correct.

It’s not just a comma. It’s blatant mis-translation. I took some Latin in school, and my husband has a minor in linguistics and is very well-informed about etymology of words. It’s obvious that the Latin hymns in our missallettes have translations that are “paraphrases,” not translations.

This bothers both of us.

I used to sing the English words softly whenever Latin hymns were sung because I don’t like singing words that I don’t understand, but now, I don’t sing at all. Many times, Catholics on CAF point out that those of us who don’t like Latin can follow along with the English translation . But not if it’s incorrect!

So I just stand there and try to think about Jesus. And I don’t attend the weekly benedictions in our parish. This situation with the paraphrases bothers me that much. I don’t know why the publishers don’t simply print an exact translation instead of a paraphase. Or print the exact translation so we know what the Latin means, AND print the paraphrase so we can sing along (sometimes exact translations don’t fit the music).

I think one reason this bothers me is because it causes me to doubt the accuracy of ANY of the “translations” of ancient Catholic documents and writings into English . Apparently, even though Latin is unchanging, the translations DO change over time, and I’m not sure what to trust. This is disturbing to me after my very bad experiences in the Protestant church (my family was kicked out of our Evangelical Protestant church) with sola Scriptura. Just being honest here, people. 😦
Click to expand...
Hymns have to be paraphrased since the poetic nature of the hymn requires a translation that still has a rhythm. I wouldn’t be too bothered by it, that seems overly scrupulous to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top