Can anyone explain this? Sequence translation in the New Adoremus Hymnal.
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    LETTER TO ADOREMUS, July 4th 2012

    In the 2nd edition of the Adoremus Hymnal, I have noticed that you do not use the approved translation of the Sequence. The version you use (Number 447 in Adoremus 2nd Edition) is not identical to the version in the current Lectionary.

    In the past, your magazine has been critical of composers who change (alter) the official Church texts. What is the reasoning behind the textual changes? Also, can your version be used liturgically?

    For example:

    Your version says:
    Where thou art not, man hath naught,

    The official version says:
    Where you art not, we have naught,

    There are many other differences.

    >

    >

    RESPONSE FROM ADOREMUS, July 5th 2012

    The English version of the Pentecost Sequence in the Adoremus Hymnal (Number 447) is a traditional translation set to traditional plainsong chant. (The Latin version, Veni Sancte Spiritus, is also in the hymnal Number 446) Like the Lord’s Prayer, which still retains the old style of English in the current Missal, this is an accurate translation.

    Are you in the United States? If so, you may note that in the 1970 US Lectionary two English versions of this Sequence were given – both a prose and a metrical version. This would indicate that use of only a single English version is not mandatory, so long as the text is accurately translated — as this hymn is.

    (The Sequence is required for Pentecost. It may be either spoken or sung, either in Latin or in the vernacular. If an English version is spoken, not sung, the Lectionary translation would be appropriate.)

    Sincerely yours in Christ,

    Helen Hull Hitchcock
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,499
    I think she's saying

    -If you read the sequence, read from the lectionary
    -If you sing the sequence, you have options: Sing any accurate translation or sing it in the Latin original
    Thanked by 1Paul F. Ford
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 781
    I think Kathy's right, but I'm also not quite sure how that logic follows: "Since more than one version is given, that means they don't care about the translation and you can use any accurate translation."
    Hm, not so sure about that. (Is there additional Church documentation that implies such?)
    Thanked by 3Paul F. Ford Ben CHGiffen
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    I think Kathy's right, but I'm also not quite sure how that logic follows: "Since more than one version is given, that means they don't care about the translation and you can use any accurate translation."
    Hm, not so sure about that. (Is there additional Church documentation that implies such?)

    I also find this rather odd and strange. I don't think the Church documents specifically address the Sequence. Anyone know where Adoremus is coming from about this?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "Breaking the rules is wrong, unless it's in a way I like. Then it's ok."

    - Traditionalist Credo.
    Thanked by 4Adam Wood CharlesW DougS WiesOrganista
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Does anyone have the versions in the 1970 Lectionary Adoremus cites? SanAntonioCath, did Helen send those to you? Can you post them?
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,366
    Rather bizarre: suggesting that a spoken performance is of less literary importance than a sung one. Even more bizarre is the notion that one can speak, rather than sing, a sequence. As for the text under discussion, the one given is the traditional Anglican one, which sings far more beautifully than any Catholic one I have seen. If one doesn't care for Elizabethan pronouns, it is easy enough to 'modernise' them. Nor did I think that the translation 'had' to be identical to the one in the lectionary. Does it, really?

    As to speaking vs. singing: Catholics are probably the only ones who would, with a perfectly straight face, speak, and not sing, a sequence. If one could imagine speaking a sequence, then I suppose one could imagine speaking any other hymn, say, 'Praise, my soul, the King of heaven'. The idea is so bizarre that it simply doesn't compute. How does such a thing even occur to anyone?

    Equally astonishing is that Catholics haven't learned to sing at least the Easter and Pentecost sequences from the cradle up. One looks forward to singing these as much as ADESTE FIDELES!
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Adam Wood
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    Isn't this analogous to the rule for responsorial psalms? If read, the Lectionary version must be used; if sung, various approved editions are permitted (Lectionary, 1964 Grail, Revised Grail, etc.).
    Thanked by 2Kathy Jenny
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 341
    Ah back when you could have any English Translation in your Missal but the text was sung in Latin. I find this a very interesting question but I think chonak is correct, if there are options with the other English propers why not with the sung version of the sequence, it is a proper.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    just sing it latin
    less quibling
    much more beautiful music
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    On Easter and Pentecost, the sequence is not optional; it is required. Therefore, if one does not have the resources to sing it, it must be spoken.
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,366
    If there are three people at mass, there are, then, resources for singing. If, indeed, they 'can't sing', or haven't been taught joyfully to sing these sequences, they are victims of cruel spiritual deprivation. Wherever and in whatever numbers people are present, there are resources for singing.
    Thanked by 3E_A_Fulhorst Gavin GregoryWeber
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    I still would like clarification on this from ADOREMUS. Can somebody provide both texts?
Add a Comment