"Word choice in a document like that is so important, so I have to believe that they are trying to tell us something specific here; unfortunately, without them defining their language, it's impossible to know what that something is!"

Totally agree, abbysmum. I speak fluent Spanish and very often translate for non-Spanish speakers. One NEVER translates literally. You have to translate so that it makes sense to the non-Spanish speaker. Many, many words and idioms are not able to be translated literally. They make absolutely no sense in another language.

With that in mind, is the GIRM a literal translation from the Latin? Are there Latin words that should not have been translated literally, but should have been modified so that the meaning is fully understood in English?

Well said. My first language is English, but I am fluent in French and was educated in French. One of the things I learned in high school was that idioms don't translate well. That's a big part of "lost in translation", because equivalent idioms don't always exist (with connotative expression being the other large factor - something closely linked to idiomatic expression). And even when equivalent idioms exist, they rarely use the same words or pictures (although they might be expressing the same idea).

I don't know Latin well enough, but I've always assumed because Latin was a dead language, it lacks idioms. Is that a correct assumption?

There are idioms and also idiomatic registers of usage.

For example, one of the things I was taught in Spanish is the different in idiomatic register between profanities and slangs of different regional Spanish usages versus their seeming cognates in English regional usages. (A vital thing to understand in conversation, and not to be left far too advanced in learning.) Quebecois French is masterclass of examples on this terrain.

Bottom line: when it comes to languages, usages, and translations, always assume there the possibility of missing subtext. It's not plug-and-play, so if you're a person uncomfortable with missing subtext...be very patient. I spent my childhood in a large family observing how my parents - who shared values deeply - had very different usages and registers and thereby often misunderstood each other and the mix that percolated among their many children. My entire professional work was based on that youthful observation combined with my immersion in a foreign language at a young age, because I realized the inherent plasticity of language and meaning (intended and received) was a nearly universal human pattern. (One of my siblings is significantly neuro-divergent and she could never quite catch onto all of the humor of the rest of the family and it was isolating for her.) My reaction to "but language is fixed in meaning" as a way to avoid messiness is: Sure, Jan.

Well said. My first language is English, but I am fluent in French and was educated in French. One of the things I learned in high school was that idioms don't translate well. That's a big part of "lost in translation", because equivalent idioms don't always exist (with connotative expression being the other large factor - something closely linked to idiomatic expression). And even when equivalent idioms exist, they rarely use the same words or pictures (although they might be expressing the same idea).

I’m also bilingual English and French, and I agree with the general discussion but only to a point. Of course idioms don’t translate, but many things can be translated literally and aren’t. This is a big frustration for me whenever I watch films with subtitles. If the original character said “I want to eat”, some people will translate it “I’m hungry”. The problem is that both of those phrases exist with full meaning in both languages. Sometimes we go for “dynamic equivalency” when it’s entirely inappropriate imho. This is why I’ve struggled so much with the old translation of the divine office. Just translate it what it says in its simple literal sense.

In the US we have Sing To The Lord from the USCCB to help interpret the GIRM. Do Canadian bishops also take a stance on the GIRM?

I don't know that I would consider a 2015 document that "out of date" in matters of church music.

So therefore the translator should choose his translation very carefully, knowing the English language.

Unfortunately, the implementation of Liturgicam Authenticam in practice strongly discouraged meaningful consideration of actual vernacular usage and idioms. One notable exception to that was in the Ordo Missae when the final translation finally ditched that "Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world" - which is just too arcane/archaic usage in modern English, however perennially idiomatic it remains in liturgical Latin - in favor of "takes".

Yes, I got that part wrong. I should have emphasized the wrong word that was changed: it was the you for who. I appreciation the correction of my lapse in memory.

Then there are certain N.O. settings of the Agnus Dei which use "... you take away..."

The main problem in translating this phrase is that no (?) other language except Latin omits presonal pronouns, and thus the combination "qui tollis" is idiomatic to Latin and almost impossible to translate.

"You" is a literal translation because "tollis" is second person singular, a personal pronoun and conjugation that no longer exists as a separate form in English (the more polite form second person plural has replaced it for a long time), but it still existed in the 16th century ("thou takest"). The "Agnus Dei" is an original Latin text, unlike other parts of the mass text which are translation from Greek, so this can be considered the source. On the other hand, the corresponding verse in the St. John Gospel 1,29 is "Ecce agnus Dei, qui tollit peccatum mundi." (Vulgata Nova), i.e., third person singular, but this is not followed by a plea for mercy.

In light of this, both "who" and "you" are justifyable translations, I think, especially as the "miserere nobis" is clearly adressing Christ in an implicit second person ("you") form. Interestingly, the German official translation is "du nimmst hinweg" ("you take away") and thus follows the mass variant, whereas the official Esperanto translation is "kiu forigas" ("who takes away") and follows the St. John gospel. Is there any English translation that reads "who" instead of "you"?

Lots of languages omit pronouns except for emphasis.

In Italian and Polish and doubtless many others the Agnus Dei is translated with grammar just like the Latin.

Is there any English translation that reads "who" instead of "you"?

The English translation in use with the Ordinariate is "...that takest away..."

So, update. I have been wading through a couple of CCCB documents to contextualize my reading of the GIRM, specifically the Guidelines for Liturgical Music (Revised) and Pastoral Notes for the Celebration of the Eucharist in Light of the Revised Roman Missal.

I am not less confused. The refer to things as "chant", but then in the next breath will talk about a song. For example:

ENTRANCE CHANT
125. During the procession, the assembly sings an opening song. The music chosen should engage the whole assembly. The song should envelop the entire procession and should not end until after the Priest has taken his place at the chair.134 (https://www.cccb.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/GIRM_Pastoral_Notes.pdf)

It refers to things as chant in titles, but then refers to songs in the text, without defining either term. Or sometimes both.

Here is where it talks about the Gloria:

145 It is sung during the seasons of Easter, Christmas and the Sundays of Ordinary Time and on Solemnities and Feasts. It may not be replaced by another chant or text. It also may be sung on special occasions of a more solemn character. It is not sung during the Advent and Lenten seasons.152
• The Glory to God is by nature a hymn and is normally sung. The assembly either sings the entire hymn, alternates with the choir or repeats a refrain announced by the cantor or choir.153

So there, it talks about a chant AND a song (implied by use of the verb "sing", although you can also easily argue otherwise) AND hymn. Even if we limited ourselves to just chant and hymn, I'm still unclear what is what. They are both nouns referring to the same thing, apparently.

On the topic of Recessionals, it says thus:

294. Although no ritual chant is indicated for the closing procession, well-known music that speaks of the Church’s mission and journey is suitable. A general or seasonal hymn of praise and thanksgiving may also be sung.

::headdesk::

The Guidelines for Liturgical Music is actually somewhat more clearer. When talking about selecting music, it says

169 It is important to select music which is a valued part of the repertoire of the universal Church. For this reason, familiar chant settings of hymns and at least one setting of the ritual music for Mass in Latin ought to be part of the repertoire of any liturgical assembly.

So here, it's using the word hymn in a truer sense, and specifies that chant settings of hymns should be used.

@Abbysmum, don't let the documents give you a headache. You have accurately spotted a classic piece of bureaucratic gymnastics.

The reason the text uses "Chant," "Hymn," and "Song" interchangeably is because the GIRM is written to fit a growing, diverse global Church. It is providing a tiered "ladder of options" that can scale from a massive cathedral with a full choir to a tiny missionary parish.

As a reminder to everyone as we navigate this, it might be helpful to review my study, A Parish Inheritance, specifically the section "What Is a Catholic Hymn." It provides the straightforward, technical definitions of these forms that the rubrics leave ambiguous.

The modern "four-hymn sandwich" we are used to isn't actually a product of Vatican II—it is a direct structural carryover from the pre-conciliar Latin Low Mass (Missa Lecta), where the congregation sang vernacular hymns over the quiet prayers of the priest.

To truly unlock what the documentation is trying to do, you have to look at the primary music of the Mass: the Propers (the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion Antiphons). These are the actual scriptural texts assigned by the Church for that specific Sunday.

Ideally, we sing these Antiphons. But if a parish chooses to use hymns instead, those hymns shouldn't just be random selections; they are meant to explicitly support the text of the assigned Antiphons and mirror the actual liturgical action taking place at the altar. When you evaluate hymnody based on how it serves the structural text of the day and teaches sound dogma, the overlapping terminology in the rubrics matters a whole lot less.

My appologies, the Agnus Dei in Spanish uses the second person, just like Latin.

Don, the whole problem is having choices.
"Ideally, we sing these Antiphons. But if a parish chooses to use hymns instead...". And why would they choose to sing hymns?????

The propers, as Serviam said here and in a video, are PRESCRIBED TEXTS, and just as Karen the lector cannot "choose" her own readings, music ministers should not "choose" hymns over propers. Hymns are not easier to sing than propers. Fr. Weber's easiest options are way easier than hymns. The choir or cantor can graduate to more complex melodies from there.

We cannot and should not pretend that the four GIRM "options" are equal. Not at all. It was a mistake to write the GIRM so that everything is able to be dumbed-down to the point where probably 80% of U.S. parishes don't even know what propers are, and hymns are the norm.

I've been in two parishes where the entire people read out loud the entrance antiphon before Mass. If there are TRULY no singers available in the entire parish, this works.

P.S. Don, I appreciate your work. I've read some of it and it's well done.