The Text Review Committee for Worship IV did think that some of the hymn text changes in Worship III were uncalled for or even grammatically incorrect.

Professor Esolen would have done well to compare texts in both editions before writing something about Worship III.

I think these changes just further reflect the deterioration of the quality of education and the deliberate dumbing-down of generations for the last 50 years. One example I always think of is "Immaculate Mary." Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the original hymn says,

"You reign now in splendor with Jesus our King,"

whereas the hymnals published by OCP all say,

"You reign now in Heaven with Jesus our King."

So...do people really not know what "splendor" means anymore? Or are they just assuming that people won't know what it means because we're all so stupid?

What is the Octagon?

Or are they just assuming that people won't know what it means because we're all so stupid?

It sounds smells to me as if it's more a case of OCP changing the text (and yes dumbing it down) in order to put it under their own copyright. Splendor Heaven forbid they would use the original text verbatim, especially if it's in the public domain.

Checking Breaking Bread, there is no claim of copyright by OCP. The ascription under Immaculate Mary states that the text is from Parochial Hymn Book, 1897.

Does musiclover88 know if his or her text is older than that? And if not, then what? Will he or she make an apology for his or her statement?

It amazes me the number of calumnies and falsehoods stated on this Forum which could easily be avoided if the posters were only to check something out before spewing forth their comments.

It amazes me the number of calumnies and falsehoods stated on this Forum which could easily be avoided if the posters were only to check something out before spewing forth their comments.

Yeah, that never happens at other notable blogs. Just ask Chris Grady, Gerard Flynn, Bill de Haas......

That's a pretty weak rationalization. Others do it, why shouldn't we?

I'm not rationalizing. I don't have a dog in this hunt. Your words, "this Forum," prompted a simple reflection.

It amazes me the number of calumnies and falsehoods stated on this Forum which could easily be avoided if the posters were only to check something out before spewing forth their comments.

...are you serious? It was just an observation I made in a word change in a hymn. Really not necessary to be accusing me of calumny. Sheesh.

We can't sing immaculate Mary anyway, because of a liturgical reason Fr Krisman invented the other day.

Or just because it's awful music.

"Immaculate Mary" is loosely based on a hymn by Jeremiah Cummings called "Hail Virgin of Virgins," the version we all know first appearing in 1952. From what I can gather, the word "Heaven" is actually authentic, not an OCP revision. The version in Worship III uses the first stanza from this, but the other stanzas are a newly created text by Brian Foley.

Personally, I do agree that "splendor" is a richer image, but that doesn't mean it's original.

As far as perpetuating falsehoods - yes, it would be good to do due diligence; however, this is an internet forum, and like others, people tend to post immediate emotional reactions. Quoting something from a forum would never hold water in an academic paper, but for the exchange of ideas a forum is good.

More on the loss of the vocative case in liturgical language, specifically in the ICEL translations, from a commenter on Fr. Z's blog:

I notice that the use of the vocative case (O God, O Almighty Father, etc.) which was so common in vernacular translations of the prayers of the EF and the Divine Office, has been extinguished in the use of the OF prayers and the current “Morning Prayer”, etc. I do not like to order God around as in “God, come to my assistance.” It is spiritually repulsive to me to pray that way.

Is it possible that ICEL will have the grace to restore the use of the vocative case in vernacular translations, or will further generations of Catholics be ingrained in a language usage which, for all intents and purposes, prevents them from perceiving the awe and majesty of God? Language usage matters very much. It contains non-verbal content and molds how we think and communicate. The image I have of my relationship to God is expressed in how I address Him. Can ICEL not go very far in helping the restoration of the Faith by being more sensitive in translations to the idea that we are creatures dependent on our all-powerful, all-loving Creator?

P.S. As kids we used to call our friends out to play by crying “O Jiiiimmy…, O Maaaary”. We desired something. We were not ordering something.

O Susannah, now don't you cry for me....
O Say can you see...
O the grand old duke of York...
Oklahoma! where the wind comes sweeping down the... oh no, hang on a minute...that one doesn't work.

The full playing-out of your position is a denial of the Incarnation; that God is too great to become a lowly human.

I beg to differ. The truth of the Incarnation is that Jesus is both God and man so it's not irrational to refer to Him and address Him with special consideration and respect.

Adam, I'm sure you're correct. I just couldn't think of any offhand. It seems to me in most hymns God is addressed with a title or in the vocative. I'm looking through the index of first lines in the Anglican Hymnbook 1982, and I see

Almighty God, O King, my God, O Lord, O Father, O blessed Jesus, O Christ, Creating God, God, my King, O thou great Jehovah, O my Lord, God of mercy, God of our fathers.

I see several that begin with O God, and O Lord, or Lord, but only two that address God directly:

God, you stretched the spangled heavens
God, you have us power to sound

So . . . I will modify my original statement to say that the general custom in traditional sacred hymnody is to address the Lord in the vocative or with an adjective or adjective phrase, an invocation or title of some sort.

The full playing-out of your position is a denial of the Incarnation; that God is too great to become a lowly human.

I beg to differ. The truth of the Incarnation is that Jesus is both God and man so it's not irrational to refer to Him and address Him with special consideration and respect.

It is possible that there have been times in the Church's history when the common view of Jesus was so elevated that all traces of his humanity were lost from popular thought. In these cases, perhaps more attention ought to have been paid to his human characteristics, and our sacral language could have better trained our minds to hold a more complete view of his dual nature.

However, I fear the opposite is true today. Jesus is merely a human, a subject of historical curiosity, a master ethicist, a teacher, a messiah-figure among many first-century messiahs. The world needs more reminders of his divinity, I think.

Where are the examples---even from 1950---of something similar, in the common parlance, using the vocative case? or 2012? Our language has evolved and continues to evolve.

Define "common parlance."

CHURCH
O God, you search me and you know me --- Bernadette Farrell

(Oldish) POPULAR MUSIC
Oh, my love, my darling --- Unchained Melody

I don't listen to a lot of pop music, but I'm sure there's plenty of vocative case, even today.

When did anyone talk like that in normal speech?

O Bonnie Bee, how I admire thee. : )

Elevated liturgical language? That's what ambos are for.

Ambos, ambos, where you been?

Very interesting, Mark. I guess I learned my grammar in an archaic textbook. : )
By "vocative case" the commenter above and I were referring more to the translation of Latin nouns in the vocative case such as Domine and Deus, which would be translated as O Lord, and O God.

Quickly looking up "O" in Wiktionary, I see it is defined as a vocative particle:

O
(grammar) The English vocative particle, used for direct address.  
The word O is always written in upper case in modern usage.
O is often used in translations from languages which have the vocative case.
Although it is not strictly archaic, the particle is sometimes used archaizingly. It conveys a formal or reverential tone.

Well, good for you, dad29! Can they handle English pre-Great Vowel Shift? Can they manage Beowulf in the original?

My point is that language is by its nature fleeting and oftem fails us in our attempts to describe the ineffable God.

language is by its nature fleeting

Thank you, by the way, for your well-stated argument pro lingua sacra!

I have told many people, when they complain about 'thee' and 'thy' in certain hymns or prayers used at public devotions, and say "We don't talk like that. We're supposed to use the vernacular, not old English", that there is a difference between "Vernacular", particularly a formal "Vernacular", language and "Colloquial" language, and that what they want is what they think is "Colloquial" English. I remind them that: 1) people still use Thee and Thy when speaking, even colloquially, in certain places, so it isn't a dead usage; 2) it isn't Old English--Beowulf is Old English, Chaucer is Middle English, Shakespeare is Modern English; 3) everything for the use of the Church, whether language, music, or vestments, ought to be set aside for that Sacred Use, ought to be distinct from what is encountered in everyday, colloquial life--why, for example, we use Chant and not Pop Music--therefore it is completely fitting that we have a style of English Usage that is set aside from the everyday, a style of English Usage that is elevated in tone and used only for the Sacred, a style of English Usage that has, at least, some liturgical history behind it. It should be noted, for example, that probably no one in Tudor England actually spoke to their neighbour like the Authorized Version or the Coverdale Psalter, that was, even then, a distinct and elevated Usage of the English Tongue, set aside for Sacred, State, and Literary use.

John Smyth, the Baker, probably didn't go home and say to Mistress Smyth: And Lo! Unto me did come three men, who, from afar, didst seem like unto Angels from on High; and yet, when they drew nearer unto me, I saw, not without displeasure that they were magistrates sent of Sir Lawrence, who, as thou knowest well, dear lady, is greatly displeased with our Sow, which we have had but only four days, but which, so he saith, stinketh so mightily as to make even the Saints in Heaven weep bitterly, such as that no man can calm them! O woe! O woe is us! Forsooth, they didst say, those Angels of Death, that even in four days more, if that same sow not be removed by us, that they themselves will come unto us, and with their own bare hands, wrest her life from her before our very eyen! O woe!

CharlesW +1

It's even more elevated if sung from the choir loft.

Verily methinks what thou sayest 'tis most splendid, Salieri.

More apt thoughts on sacred liturgical language from the Vatican website from a 2011 statements from the Office for Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff:

"Sacred language, being the means of expression not only of individuals, but rather of a community that follows its traditions, is conservative: it maintains the archaic linguistic forms with tenacity."

"In the course of history a wide variety of languages has been used in Christian worship: Greek in the Byzantine tradition; the different languages of the Eastern traditions, such as Syriac, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic and Ethiopic; Paleo-Slavic; the Latin of the Roman rite and of the other Western rites."

" . . . Finally, it is necessary to preserve the sacred character of the liturgical language in the vernacular translation, as noted with exemplary clarity in the Instruction of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments on the translation of liturgical books Liturgiam Authenticam of 2001. A notable fruit of this instruction is the new English translation of the Missale Romanum, which will be introduced in many English-speaking countries in the course of this year.

http://www.vatican.va/news_services/liturgy/details/ns_lit_doc_20110209_lingua_en.html