Sanctus

[Q the Ninja]

I have a thread on that somewhere.

[MichaelFilo]

So, I am fairly correct in what I found?

No offense to anyone, but I won't rest until Cam has given some sort of answer.

As for dUst, for some reason, I remember seeing Adoremus not having the best rating, but it must be a confabulation. Please excuse my error.

God bless,
Mikey

[Aloysius]

the ICEL (International Commission on the English Liturgy) is completely reworking the English translation as we speak, but it'll probably take a while

the ICEL really really dropped the ball the first time they translated it, mainly because it was so hard to find english speaking translators that didn't have an agenda.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Apr 26 2005, 12:06 AM']

Actually, his name is Michelle...











:rotfl: Sorry...couldn't resist...ah, I miss our paltalk days...


...and Jennie... [/quote]
I miss the paltalk days too......we need to get that going again.....I still moderate in trainorsr's room.

I miss Jennie too....we need to get her back as well.....

I say we push for a paltalk reunion....

Don't worry, Mikey, I will have an answer for you.....I just got home from work.

Cam

[kateri05]

its going to be NRSV?? gender inclusive??? noooooooooooooooo

cardinal arinze can't allow THAT (or papa ben!!), are you sure??

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Apr 26 2005, 09:08 PM'] I miss the paltalk days too......we need to get that going again.....I still moderate in trainorsr's room.

I miss Jennie too....we need to get her back as well.....

I say we push for a paltalk reunion....

Don't worry, Mikey, I will have an answer for you.....I just got home from work.

Cam [/quote]
I don't remember you on PalTalk.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Apr 27 2005, 06:27 AM'] I don't remember you on PalTalk. [/quote]
I'm sorry....you missed something great...

[Cam42]

Mikey,

I think that your question is deeper than simply the Sanctus...I think that it is about the overall translation. While the translation of the Sanctus is terrible....the whole liturgy is terribly translated as a whole. Does that take away the sacramentality of the Mass, nope. Does it give Latinists like Micah and myself cause to cringe and hope for nothing other than a NO Latin Mass exculsively (?), for me at least, yep.

However, here is what I think.

[quote]Problems with the English-language translations of the liturgical texts assume a particular gravity in proportion to the prominence of the English language in the international community. Even while it remains essential that liturgical translations be made directly from the original texts into the various modern vernacular languages, the impact which the English-language translation is likely to exert on certain other versions is an observed and unavoidable fact, which in turn must be said to place a significant responsibility on those charged with the translations into English. Moreover, the experience of the years since the Council, as well as a deepening theological reflection, have brought clearly into focus the fact that the constitution, the regulation and the oversight of an international commission for liturgical translation are rightfully the competence of the Holy See to a degree which is not always sufficiently reflected in the Statutes which govern such bodies. (Jorge Card. Medina Estevez)[/quote]

We see that the English translation is the most important translation from the Latin. A Vatican letter said that "Statutes of the 'International Commission on English in the Liturgy' are to be revised thoroughly and without delay". The new statutes are to be drafted "in active consultation with [the Congregation]" by the bishop members of the Commission themselves, not by staff, and are to be submitted to the Holy See by Easter 2000. Have we seen the fruit of this yet? I don't think so. I think that it has been too long in coming.

Here are some considerations:
[quote]1) the activities of the "Mixed Commission" [ICEL] are "defined as translation of the [official authorized editions] of the Roman liturgical texts and books in their integrity", and not "any proposals for cultural adaptation, modification or the composition of original texts".

[This alone represents a major change, since ICEL has always appropriated to itself the authority to produce original texts and often proposes striking "modifications" -- additions, deletions and paraphrases -- rather than straightforward translations.]

2) ICEL's involvement with similar bodies in other denominations are to cease.

[ICEL members helped organize the Protestant "English Language Liturgical Commission" and has worked closely with the ELLC to produce "common texts" for worship. This involvement has, predictably, affected the translations and frequently has led to theologically unwarranted "modifications", apparently from excessive zeal for ecumenism.]

3) members of ICEL's advisory commission are to serve for fixed terms; all appointees are to obtain permission from the Congregation.

[This would effectively end the self-perpetuating bureaucratic structure of ICEL, which has been answerable only to itself since it was first formed by a group of bishops from eleven English-speaking countries in 1963. (Fifteen other countries also use ICEL translations.) Although in principle the idea of having one translation for a multi-national language like English makes good practical sense, from the beginning, ICEL has been dominated by one narrow "progressive" interpretation of the intention of the Council's liturgical reform, and has used its unparalleled influence to promote these views which conflict in essential ways with authentic Catholic teaching.] (USCCB)[/quote]

Here is a great article by [url="http://www.adoremus.org/1099-NewBooks.html"]Helen Hull Hitchcock[/url].

This is also a telling article:
[url="http://www.adoremus.org/2-00-ICEL.quotes.html"]ICEL Snapshots[/url]

I know this doesn't directly answer your question, but as I thought about what you were asking, I think that it is a bigger question than simply what you posted. Perhaps I am wrong, if I am disregard all of the above, but I don't think so.

Cam

[Socrates]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Apr 25 2005, 11:45 PM'] I know the Novus Ordo Mass is not to be discussed lest someone would doubt the unity within the Catholic Church. So, I am simply stating this about all Masses said in English (that inadvertnly narrows it down to the Novus Ordo). Let me get to the point, and if this thread is out of line with rules (which restrict discussion on the Novus Ordo, but doesn't specify about vernacular) then please delete it if you so see fit.

My arguement is thus, based on something brought up by a sight (specifically Adoremus.com (we all know, it's not perfectly in-line, but some of it is) and after hearing a gregorian chant CD that my Baptist ( WOW ) Latin teacher let me borrow. I heard the Sanctus in Latin, with a convineint English translation. The Adoremus website gave me some meat to this discrepancy that I saw between the Latin (and consquently the correct version) and the English, which seems to be an altered version in which the difference changes the meaning of the very reciation of the Sanctus.

The Sanctus as according to the Tridentine Latin from [url="http://www.truecatholic.org/masstrad.htm"]TrueCatholic.org[/url]


Literally translated this would read :


Now, my qualm specifically comes forth from the first line. The "Holy, holy, holy" is a reference to the Trinity and is found in both Isiah and the book of Revelations. In all of the Masses I have heards, the 2nd and 3rd "holies" are split-up. This clearly defaces the Trinitarian remark in this line.

Which leads to the next problem, that is the "holy Lord". As I was listening to the Sanctus, the pauses were unfamiliar to my ears, and as I like to sing along in the Latin to gregorian chant so that I may become verbally fluent in Latin, I found it terribly awkward for this deviation from the Latin the English has taken up. This is the point I went to Adoremus in my plight to find some answers. The Latin is rendered "Dominus Deus Sabaoth". The problem came up when the English renders its "Holy Lord, God of power and might". That isn't like the Latin. The Latin lacks the comma, and is read "Lord God of Hosts". Aside from the clearly proposterous deviation from Sabaoth to "God of power and might", why would the words "Dominus" and Deus" be seperated?  Isiah 6:3 does not render them thus, which the reference comes from. No translation renders them thus, so what happened to the translation?

I'm no Latin scholar, but I'm willing to argue this to the very bottom of the situation, to find out exactly why we went from Lord God of hosts to Holy Lord, God of power and might.

God bless,
Mikey

[i]Post Scriptum:[/i] Relevant article from Adoremus that was referenced in my above post : [url="http://www.adoremus.org/0602Sanctus.html"]Adoremus : Sanctus[/url] [/quote]
Off topic, but why were you using for a source and linking to truecatholic.org, the nutty schismatic website devoted to "Pope Pius XIII," the wacky Montana anti-pope???

Edited April 27, 2005 by Socrates

[MichaelFilo]

I didn't know the proportion of this problem. Thank you for clarifying all.


I quoted trueCatholic because it was on hand. It maybe shishmatic, but the text to the Sanctus is accurate.

God bless,
Mikey

[Mickey's_Girl]

I can't speak to the Latin or the liturgy; too ignorant yet. I do, however, know about English. Translating Latin into English is complicated, because (in some ways) English is more complicated than Latin. Also, English can have many more words for a concept that, in another language, just has one. We have lots of nuances in English, and it's important to get them right.

Also, we have to realize: language changes. Especially languages spoken by many, many people, as English is. Whose version of "English" (American, British, Aussie/NZ, Indian, South African, etc.) will the translation be in? One needs input from experts conversant with the many "Englishes" in order to be as accurate as possible.

These things, of course, take time. And when you're trying to weed out people with agendas, it takes even more time. So I wouldn't worry too much about why it's taking so long. Translation is a complicated thing.

MG

[MichaelFilo]

Tha tis true, and I cannot imagine anyone who would deny it. But it seems just in the Sanctus, the translation of Sabaoth is not even near the actual translation. It never has meant what it is translated into. There is more than just mere language translation barriars. I realize each Latin word has many English meanings and depends highly on context, but the words can never mean something they never ever mean. Sabaoth never meant "God of power and might", and I am sure, with further study, other things like this will come up.

God bless,
Mikey

[argent_paladin]

Yes, it is a widespread problem. The 1997 translation norms put out by the Vatican threw a wrench into all the translations and translating being done from Latin into English. They specificlaly exclude gender inclusive language and dynamic equivalence (looser translations). ICEL had to be fundamentally changed. The biggest problem was that the translators were interpreting rather than just translating. Rome said that the interpretation had been done when the new mass was promulgated after Vat II, it shouldn't be interpreted again. I saw a draft copy of the revised mass a few years ago and it is pretty promising. I'll see if I can find it.

[God Conquers]

There is definately a new translation underway. And yes it will take several years.

However, I am very very confident that it will be good. Cardinal Arinze has appointed a comittee to oversee the ICEL and the new translation of the mass. I personally know one of the archbishops on the comittee, he is excellent. I also know from him that C ardinal George Pell is on this comittee.

I'm expecting good things in a couple years.