quaeritor wrote:... nor anything as arcane as "God of Hosts" (which after a lapse of some millennia doesn't really mean anything to anyone any more).
I disagree, for a whole host of reasons.
Its use presumes familiarity with biblical and traditional references to the heavenly host. Now, relative ignorance of scripture & tradition may be widespread, but that's an argument for catachesis, not retreat.
The Spanish has not changed. There will in the fullness of time be a new Spanish translation of the Missale Romanum editio tertia including the Order of Mass, but not for quite some time. In the meantime, it is to be noted that some composers have indeed glossed the text and have set en las alturas as nazard hypothesised. No policing there....
A good dynamic-equivalence translation of en el cielo would be "in the heavens", although the Spanish is not in the plural (the Latin in excelsis of course is).
The French has Dieu de l'univers just like the Spanish Dios del Universo. They also have Hosanna au plus haut des cieux — Hosanna in the highest heavens, with which we are of course familiar from the Gathering Mass settng (and the Jerusalem Bible, come to that).
The German is not, as far as I am aware, going to change. They have Heilig, heilig, heilig Gott, Herr aller Mächte und Gewalten — Holy, holy, holy God, Lord of all might[s] and power[s] (both those words in a plural form). Also Hosanna in der Höhe — Hosanna in the highest.
Italians are, it seems, fighting the Congregation to avoid what they see as stupid changes. Currently, they have Dio dell'universo like the French and Spanish, and Osanna nell'alto dei caeli — Hosanna in the highest heavens — like the French.
I should add to what I wrote last night. Castillian does indeed only have one modern word for army but it nevertheless has the option of translating Sabaoth as "de las huestes" (of the hosts).
The Scottish, Irish, Norwegian and Swedish translations are as follows.
Is naomh, naomh, naomh thu, a Thlghearna, a Dhia nan slògh; tha neamh is talamh làn ded mhóralachd 's ded ghlòlr. Moladh do Dhia anns na h-àrdaibh. Is beannaichte esan a tha tighinn ann an ainm an Tighearna; moladh do Dhia anns na h-àrdaibh.
"is .. thu" (you are ...) "a Thighearna" (o Lord) "nan slògh" (of the hosts) "ded mhóralachd 's ded ghlòir" (of your majesty and of your glory") "anns na h-àrdaibh" (in the heights)
Is naofa, naofa naofa thú, a Thiarna, Dia na slua. Tá neamh agus talamh lán de do ghlóir. Hósanna sna harda. Is beannaithe an té atá ag teacht in ainm an Tiarna. Hósanna sna harda.
"is .. thú" (you are ...) "a Thiarna" (o Lord) "na slua" (of the hosts) "anns na h-àrdaibh (in the heights)
Hellig, hellig, hellig, er Herren, hærskarenes Gud. Himlene og jorden er fulle av din herlighet. Hosanna i det høye! Velsignet være han som kommer i Herrens navn. Hosanna i det høye!
"er" (is) "hærskarenes" (of the hosts) - a compound of 'hær' (army) and 'skare' (host) "det høye" (the heights) "være han" (be he)
Helig, helig, helig är Herren Gud Sebaot. Himlarna och jorden är fulla av din härlighet. Hosianna i höjden. Välsignad vare han som kommer i Herrens namn. Hosianna i höjden.
"är" (is) "höjden" (the height) "vare han" (be he)
Has anyone been called upon to explain the new capitalizations: 'Bread', 'Cup', 'Death' etc?
Today's Times included an easy guide to punctuation. All very basic stuff. The final section listed some mistakes that "will take the shine off your work", some more serious mistakes that "will damage your credibility", and some even worse ones that "will make you look stupid". This last category included "Don't give a word a capital letter merely because it's an important word in your sentence."
musicus wrote:Has anyone been called upon to explain the new capitalizations: 'Bread', 'Cup', 'Death' etc?
It's a requirement of Liturgiam Authenticam:
33. The use of capitalization in the liturgical texts of the Latin editiones typicae as well as in the liturgical translation of the Sacred Scriptures, for honorific or otherwise theologically significant reasons, is to be retained in the vernacular language at least insofar as the structure of a given language permits.
ICEL publication policy (amended 2008), page 9:
In the preparation of its translations, the Advisory Committee and Episcopal Board follow the principles set forth in the Apostolic See's Instruction on the Translation of Liturgical Texts (1969). In carrying out these principles, ICEL has developed a certain style that reflects a contemporary usage and taste that involves not only the content of the text but also the form in which it is presented. In the preparation of its translations, therefore, ICEL is particularly attentive to details of format, punctuation, capitalization, paragraphing, and the like, since even these details aid the public proclama- tion of the liturgical texts and contribute to an effective celebration of the liturgy. All these elements are considered integral to the text.
Any opinions expressed are my own, not those of the Archdiocese of Birmingham Liturgy Commission, Church Music Committee. Website
musicus wrote:Has anyone been called upon to explain the new capitalizations: 'Bread', 'Cup', 'Death' etc?
It's a requirement of Liturgiam Authenticam:
33. The use of capitalization in the liturgical texts of the Latin editiones typicae as well as in the liturgical translation of the Sacred Scriptures, for honorific or otherwise theologically significant reasons, is to be retained in the vernacular language at least insofar as the structure of a given language permits.
I have just checked my Latin "Typical Edition" Altar Missal of 2002. Capitals for Bread, Cup, Resurrection etc… are simply not there in the Latin text. This is the first printing of the third edition of the Missal (complete with Latin EPs for Children in an Appendix) and I understand there has been a further printing. Can anyone check this more recent printing to check on the use of capitalisation?
Any opinions expressed are my own, not those of the Archdiocese of Birmingham Liturgy Commission, Church Music Committee. Website
