But that’s just the point. Hymns do not have to be translated. That was the whole idea behind Jubilate Deo. The English, if you follow along, is just a guide with no guarantee it’s a perfect translation. And a Latin-English side-by-side is of little value if all you’re going to do is to sing the English.
But that’s just the point. Hymns do not have to be translated. That was the whole idea behind Jubilate Deo. The English, if you follow along, is just a guide with no guarantee it’s a perfect translation. So why bother with the meter, rhyme, alliteration, etc. if everyone will eventually find some fault with the translation? Sooner or later, a Latin scholar (or even a first year Latin student) is sure to come by, discredit the entire song, and upset the entire Anglosphere world. Just saying.
I agree. I’ve been recently reminding my children that one great beauty of the mass is that our standardization allows us to join with other parishes celebrating mass simultaneously and communally raising of voices in praise to Our Father. What a great privilege to be counted among those hundreds of thousands of voices of the faithful lifted to the Heavenly feast in unison. Holding ourselves apart from the worship bears no good fruit. When we decide not to participate (regardless of our reason) voices are missing.
I know this isn’t the main topic of the thread, but doesn’t “sed tantum” literally mean “but only”? Why would we change that?
Wow. I can usually at least understand and sympathize with your viewpoints, but I don’t know this time…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.
We don’t do any Latin during our Masses. So there’s no issue there.
Are completely accurate translations really possible? I don’t think so. Even in English there are subtle differences between synonyms, but if translated into a different language these two synonyms (assume and presume, for example) become the same word in some foreign tongue. Much therefore is lost in the translation when phrases, sentences, entire paragraphs lose their nuances. Can’t our faith be distorted in the English, a language which is shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, similarly?
What makes you think they’re not accurate translations because they’re partially paraphrased? In some ways, dynamic equivalence makes for a better translation than absurd literalness for various reasons. Hymns aren’t documents of canon law. Every single word does not have to convey the exact meaning was conveyed in the Latin; actually, that would be impossible, because every translation in some part is a betrayal of the original.
this.
Except that neither “Sanctus” nor “Dominus” is in the vocative; they are in the nominative. I suppose a Hebrew scholar could tell us what Isaiah 6:3 actually says, but in the Vulgate it is rendered: “sanctus sanctus sanctus Dominus exercituum plena est omnis terra gloria eius.” That makes sense – the whole thing is in the third person, up through: “full of his glory.” The Sanctus in the Mass, by contrast, contains an ungainly and puzzling shift from the nominative to the second person with “gloria tua”; roughly, “The Lord is holy; the earth is full of your glory.” Beg pardon?, he must say – You talkin’ to me?
I agree with you on a lot of points. Literalness (as in the last translation) means/meant using a cognate as much as possible. For example, “spirit” for spiritu, “consubstantial” for consubstantialem, etc. But going back to the OP, is “holy” an accurate translation for sanctus? Seems to be an educated guess at best IMO, but not necessarily “wrong.”
Yes, I would have to agree. But when the Mass was originally translated in “the vernacular”, (and this lasted many years - maybe 20), we said, “Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed.”
It might be even more awkward if we translated sed tantum dic verbo more precisely as “but only say WITH the word” as verbo is in the ablative case, not accusative as it’s rendered in both old and new translations.
Can’t check a 1961 Missale at the moment, but there’s no comma in the 1962 or 1920 editions. I’m assuming nobody here is going to argue that a pause became liturgical tradition due to a textual difference that existed for one year.
Ancient Hebrew does not have commas.