On Going Wonder...
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    What is the "E u o u a e" for?
    Picture 5.png
    183 x 70 - 9K
    Thanked by 1bonniebede
  • don roy
    Posts: 306
    et in secula seculorum amen. this indicated the end of the gloria patri in the introit and was written in shorthand like this because the gloria patri melody waS extrapolated from the psalm verse melody having no need therefore to write it down, instead picking up (by the above shorthand) where to pick up the melody.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    And it is also an incredibly gifted and innovative chant ensemble under Sven Michael Olbash at the French National basilica in San Francisco! I think that might also be "Incantu's" handle.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    And it's Bill Stoop's clever license plate. :)
    Thanked by 3BruceL StimsonInRehab SarahJ
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    MACW,

    I totally have to get that as a licence plate when I get a car. :D
    Thanked by 6Gavin canadash Paul F. Ford RevAMG ClergetKubisz Scott_W
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    scholista:

    note that the vowels of "saeculorum amen" are (e) u o u a e. So the words are sung to the notes given, as don roy mentions.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 349
    Several times, I've heard about a Russian schola that apparently recorded some propers where they sang the e u o u a e vowels along with everything else (clearly they didn't "get" what those are for). I'd love to hear that but haven't found it.
    Thanked by 2Gavin Ben
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I also heard it once. Wish I could find it!
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Any thoughts about why Dñe and Dñus but Domini and sometimes Dominus in the Liber Usualis Alphabetical Table? How did this contraction come about?
    Screen shot 2014-07-31 at 4.28.19 PM.png
    428 x 241 - 28K
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Contractions of practically anything and everything were very common in medieval Latin (and can make it extremely difficult to read unless the text has been edited to eliminate them). Shortenings of the commonest words, like "Dominus" in religious texts, were practically universal at a time when everything had to be written by hand on costly parchment or vellum.

    I couldn't say, though, why the LU index fails to abbreviate Dominus and Domini in one case each (I have see Dñi in other texts).
    Thanked by 2scholista Kathy
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    Perhaps the abbreviations are what appears in the text that is referred to?
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Looking at the graphic you posted, it looks like it's just for typesetting reasons. "Domine" wouldn't have fit on the line.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    But it would have fit for "Domine quis habitat" and pribably also for "Domine non est exaltatum"?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Having compressed one out of need, perhaps they compressed the rest for the sake of a consistent appearance.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    But then "Dominus regit me" should have been abbreviated for consistency, and "Domini est terra" to avoid running up to the page numbers. When I posted yesterday I considered every possible scheme that they might have been employing, and could not come up with any one that might consistently explain the outcome.
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    I vote for "random monk wanted to mess with us pedants."
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen bonniebede Salieri
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    I understand that Gregorian Chant is full of mystery, but I can't help wondering: in what mode is Attende Domine? The Liber Usualis has it in mode 5 and the Parish Book of Chant lists no mode.

    From my own ignorant analysis, the final/tonic seems to be do and the dominant seems to be sol, neither of which fits with what I learned about the eight Gregorian modes. Additionally, the range appears to be do to do, which would suggest mode 6.

    I give up; but curious minds want to know!
  • Jacques PerrièreJacques Perrière
    Posts: 139
    (edited)
    Yes, Attende Domine is in mode 5 but the other mode 5: final C and dominant G, when the normal mode 5 is final F and dominant C.
    The Parish Book of Chant simply forgot to indicate the mode for this one.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Jacques,

    Please correct me if I'm wrong but in Gregorian speak, aren't Final & Tonic different names for the same thing - the last note of a chant? Shoudn't one of the terms you use be Dominant?

    Also, where did this other mode 5 come from?
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    If I may interject:

    The 'other mode 5' is simply a transposition of mode 5 (fa-fa') to (do-do') for a chant that would necessitate an odd position of the do clef, or placement in the fa clef which is uncharacteristic of the fifth mode, and perpetual te (ti-flat/b-flat); it's simply a convenience: this is also the case for the simplex Salve Regina.
    Thanked by 4ronkrisman scholista CHGiffen CCooze
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Also, in chant, I thought Tonic and Dominant were not terms used. I thought what might most closely resemble for the chant modes those concepts we know of as Tonic and Dominant are Final and Reciting Tone.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    FWIW, I've heard chant experts use tonic/dominant and final/reciting-tone interchangeably.
    Thanked by 3ClergetKubisz CHGiffen scholista
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    The Latin Collect in the Liber Usualis for today, Sept. 14: Exaltation of the Cross, is not the same as the Latin Collect for today in the Gregorian Missal. The theme is the same, but the wording is different. Aren't collects specified by the 1961 LU? What is the source for the collect in the Gregorian Missal?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    The Gregorian Missal has texts for the modern Roman Missal (Ordinary Form), while the Liber Usualis has texts for the 1962 Roman Missal (Extraordinary Form).
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 967
    1961 LU is for the Extraordinary Form, the Gregorian Missal is for the Ordinary Form. The collects in both editions are taken from the Roman Missal.

    EF: Deus, qui nos hodierna die Exaltationis sanctae Crucis annua solemnitate laetificas: praesta quaesumus; ut cuius mysterium in terra cognovimus, eius redemptionis praemia in caelo mereamur.

    OF: Deus, qui Unigenitum tuum crucem subire voluisti, ut salvum faceret genus humanum, praesta, quaesumus, ut, cuius mysterium in terra cognovimus, eius redemptionis praemia in caelo consequi mereamur.

    See also Fr. Zuhlsdorf on these collects.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen scholista
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    A number of collects in the 1970 missal were "revised" from the ones in the 1962, so the wording is slightly different. Sometimes they changed it back to a more ancient version of the prayer, but more often (it seems) they changed the wording for whatever reason. The same thing happened to some of the unchanging parts, (e.g. Confiteor, embolism after the Our Father).
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    I understand that the numbering of the Psalms in the Masoretic Text (the authoritative text of the Hebrew and Aramaic scripture as well as the accepted authoritative Old Testament text among Protestants) is different from the numbering of the Psalms in the Septuagint (the Hebrew Scriptures translated into Koiné Greek, upon which the Vulgate is based and therefore, also, the approved Catholic Translations for the Old Testament). I even understand that this is because of the difference in the division of Psalms 9/10 and 114/115. I get that.

    What I don't get is this: if the Catholic Church uses the Vulgate - which is a translation of the Septuagint - why does the English speaking Catholic world (is it only the English speaking world?) use the Jewish/Protestant numbering of the Psalms? Even the Liturgy Of The Hours uses the Jewish/Protestant numbering of the Psalms rather than that of the Septuagint/Vulgate. Any theories?

    Additionally, why in Catholic circles do I have to refer to the beautiful penitential Psalm (Miserere/Asperges me...) as Psalm 50/51? Is this merely for ecumenical reasons?

    Just wondering on a Saturday morning. : )
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    why does the English speaking Catholic world (is it only the English speaking world?) use the Jewish/Protestant numbering of the Psalms?


    1. Ecumania
    2. Bishops kissing up to the Protestants - maybe false sense of charity.
    3. Conference of bishops gets to sell its own version of scripture.
    4. Profit - see number 3.
    5. USCCB doesn't know, it is just their policy.
    6. USCCB operates like federal government bureaucrats.
    7. No good reason and no one knows of one.

    Take your pick.
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    Does/did the ICEL have anything to do with this?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    Does/did the ICEL have anything to do with this?


    Good question.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Does/did the ICEL have anything to do with this?


    The US, Canada, and England/Wales lectionaries are all based on different scripture translations, so it appears that each conference of bishops is responsible for its own edition of the Lectionary, subject to approval or revision by the Holy See.

    Q: why does the English speaking Catholic world (is it only the English speaking world?) use the Jewish/Protestant numbering of the Psalms?

    8. In 1943, Divino afflante Spiritu urged scripture translators to have recourse to the original languages.

    22. Wherefore this authority of the Vulgate in matters of doctrine by no means prevents - nay rather today it almost demands - either the corroboration and confirmation of this same doctrine by the original texts or the having recourse on any and every occasion to the aid of these same texts, by which the correct meaning of the Sacred Letters is everywhere daily made more clear and evident. Nor is it forbidden by the decree of the Council of Trent to make translations into the vulgar tongue, even directly from the original texts themselves, for the use and benefit of the faithful and for the better understanding of the divine word, as We know to have been already done in a laudable manner in many countries with the approval of the Ecclesiastical authority.


    The Nova Vulgata translation of the psalms started with the Masoretic text, but referred to the Septuagint interpretation if the Masoretic appeared to be corrupted or otherwise incomprehensible. The Nova Vulgata presents each psalm with its modern number first, then its Vulgate number: e.g., "Psalm 51 (50)".
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Correct me if I am interpreting this incorrectly (no pun intended), but did not the Council of Trent declare the Vulgate to be the authoritative edition of the Holy Bible? It seems like the passage above is suggesting that the Vulgate is somehow flawed and in need of revision and clarification, so it is necessary to go back to the original texts and re-translate into vernacular languages. While it is true that the Council of Trent did not explicitly disallow translations of the Holy Bible into the vulgar tongue, the above passage seems out of keeping with its decrees.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • CCoozeCCooze
    Posts: 1,259
    Just a note on the original question, since this notation does specify the way to sing the "Amen" (but shows the seaculorum first, just to give context) of the Gloria Patri, it's important to make sure you don't make this mistake:
    Sometimes members of my schola need the whole GP written out, just because they aren't as experienced/sure of their ability to remember it without the music in front of them. Oftentimes I'll just copy/paste the GP attached at the bottom of the ccwatershed introit for that day. If you don't check the one on CCWatershed against the ending you have on the paper from the LU, it might confuse people, and/or make it so that you have 2 different versions of the "Amen" being sung at once. So, I ended up just grabbing the GP off of the Communio, because it matched and was easier than cutting off one Amen and pasting the other
    I just had to deal with this 2 weeks ago, so it's fresh on my mind.
    Thanked by 1scholista
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    but did not the Council of Trent declare the Vulgate to be the authoritative edition of the Holy Bible?


    There are websites with texts from the Council of Trent; can you do some digging and see what you can find there in the Council's expositions or decrees?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    English and Latin of the decree here. As far as I can see it approves the "old and vulgate edition" but only requires that alternatives if printed get ecclesiastical approval.
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,—considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,—ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many ages, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.


    This seems to declare the Vulgate edition in Latin to be the authoritative and authentic version of the Holy Bible. Note the last line, "...and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever."
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    It's important to understand what this decree is NOT saying (or even implying):

    - that translations from the original languages are no longer allowed
    - that every textual variant in the Vulgate is correct
    - that the numbering of the psalms in the Vulgate is correct
    - that the Vulgate is the only legitimate or correct version of the Scriptures
    - that the version of the Vulgate current at the time of the decree was not in need of revision (in fact, more than one pope has decreed a revision or restoration of the Vulgate text)

    What it is saying is that the Vulgate may legitimately be used in the Church, and no one may say otherwise. This is not the same as saying that only the Vulgate may be used.

    The decree was issued in the context of the assertions of the Reformers that the Vulgate was corrupt or not legitimate since it was not the original text. Note that the decree is making a judgement concerning "all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books," not upon the value of the original texts, which, of course, are the only ones that are inspired.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    There are no "original texts."
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    Precisely, Charles, which is why the Church asserted Her teaching authority in this particular decree. Note also the last line that states, "...and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever." All of the items above that mention what the decree is NOT saying would fall under that particular statement.

    Also important to remember is that the Church is noted for telling us WHAT to do, and not WHAT NOT to do, which means that reading into a decree to find out what is NOT there is a dangerous undertaking. We must concern ourselves with what IS there and ensure that we are in accordance with it.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Nota bene: the above decree reassures the faithful that "out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation" in the year of our Lord 1546, the Vulgate was to be considered authentic.

    The decree does not say that the Vulgate is superior in every way to all editions ever produced then or in the future, in all languages.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen a_f_hawkins Liam
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    Nor does it mention liturgy. The psalms verses as handed down for use as antiphons are, sometimes evidently, from different (older) translations than St Jerome's.
    Thanked by 2chonak Liam
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    So, what I'm hearing you say is that the Church did NOT declare an official version of the Bible. And again, we're focusing on what the passage DOESN'T say. I don't really think in any discussion of a particular text that reading into what is NOT there is a useful endeavor. We must consider what IS there.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,371
    No I am saying the Church DID declare AN official version of the Bible. I do not however think more highly of it than it's author, St Jerome. He said that getting the meaning precisely right in translation is impossible, simply because Latin is totally and completely different in structure and vocabulary from Hebrew. Even in Latin, some words will have different meanings or shades of meaning to Jerome than they did to Cicero or Virgil.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Reading a text like a Roman, what is not said is typically more important than what is said.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • ClergetKubiszClergetKubisz
    Posts: 1,912
    So then we are left to debate the meaning of things and come up with a consensus for what is actually meant. Forgive my cynicism but I do not see how that can possibly be an effective method of making decisions.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    This tends to be one of the general errors of common day thinking which runs rampant in our church and in society. There is no longer a "black and white" (literally), a standard or rule by which men should live, even a clear right and wrong that applies to all. This is how syncretism and relativism have blurred our moral compass and why "yes" does not necessarily mean yes nor "no" mean no. It is a diabolical disorientation on every level. Your truth is not my truth, and your god is not my god. The only truth seems to be that all of our gods lead to the one god. This is all simply a manner of madness. God has indeed left us to our own thinking; your own, his own and my own.
    Thanked by 1ClergetKubisz
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    We are not left to figure out the meaning of the decrees only on our own; the Roman Pontiff is always the supreme legislator and provides authoritative guidance to resolve violations of the decree.

    Incidentally, this decree is not the only legislation regarding scripture translations. The 1983 Code of Canon Law, if I remember aright, specifies that translations of Scripture must be approved by the bishops conference.

    Other documents specify that lectionaries for the liturgy require papal approval. Also, there are documents on specific issues, such as Liturgiam authenticam.
    Thanked by 2Liam a_f_hawkins
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    Also important to remember is that the Church is noted for telling us WHAT to do, and not WHAT NOT to do

    Actually (as usual) the Church is telling us both. The positive part is that the Vulgate is approved for public lectures, etc.; the negative is that no one may reject this version.

    I don't really think in any discussion of a particular text that reading into what is NOT there is a useful endeavor. We must consider what IS there.

    I didn't claim that the only purpose of the decree was to tell us what not do do or believe, but that it's important not to over-interpret its meaning. In other words, I listed things the decree was not saying only because it seemed as though people were implying things that it did not imply. I don't see this as a "dangerous undertaking," just a straightforward delineation of what is in the text and what is not. Implying that a decree of the Church says more that it really does is the real danger here, in my opinion, since it places the authority of the Church behind statements it does not endorse.
    Thanked by 2a_f_hawkins Liam
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    The Nova Vulgata translation...

    I appreciate the above reference to the Nova Vulgata, of which I was unaware. Thanks, chonak, for the lead in answering my question about the numbering of the Psalms.

    Below is an informative blurb on Amazon about this resource. I'll be interested to learn more about the Nova Vulgata from the Church herself.
    http://www.amazon.com/Latin-Bible-Nova-Vulgata-God-ebook/dp/B00MNOFFWE/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450573149&sr=1-1&keywords=nova+vulgata
    The Nova Vulgata is the official Latin version of the Bible for the Catholic Church. It has its origins in the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965), which put forth the mandate for a revision of the Latin Psalter in order to bring it in line with modern text-critical research. Then in 1965, Pope Paul VI established a commission to expand the revision to cover the entire Bible. The revised Psalter was completed and published in 1969, followed by the New Testament in 1971, and the entire Vulgate was completed in 1979. A second edition was then published several years later in 1986.

    The textual basis of the Nova Vulgata is the critical edition of Jerome's Vulgate, as edited by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome in Rome and the critical edition of the Vulgate edited by Robert Weber (also available with a critical apparatus in the German Bible Society Bundle). The basis for Tobit and Judith are the Old Latin manuscripts that predate Jerome's translation. Together this collection of texts were revised according to modern critical editions of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, along with a number of places where the editors believed that Jerome had misunderstood the meaning of the original or had translated it obscurely.

    The original goal of the Nova Vulgata was to provide an authoritative edition of Jerome's translation for the production of a reformed Latin liturgy, while also correcting the Vulgate in use and taking into account other important liturgical factors such as readability in public and singability for choirs.
  • scholistascholista
    Posts: 109
    I'll be interested to learn more about the Nova Vulgata from the Church herself.

    https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_jp-ii_apc_19790425_scripturarum-thesaurus.html

    APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION SCRIPTURARUM THESAURUS OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II BY WHICH THE NEW VULGATE EDITION OF THE HOLY BIBLE IS DECLARED "TYPICAL" AND IS PROMULGATED (April 25, 1979)
    Thanked by 1eft94530
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    "EUO UAE" -- it's ISIS' coded plan for evolution from somewhere in the Gulf to somewhere north of the Mediterranean.
Add a Comment