Faith Filled Friday: The Gloria Patri, Which English Translation?

The Gloria Patri prayer, commonly known in English as the Glory Be, dates back to the patristic times of the Church.  It is the Christian adaptation of the Jewish Sh’ma (“Hear, O Israel, the Lord is our God, the Lord is One”) and the Baruch shem (“Blessed is/be the name of the glory/honor of His kingdom forever and ever”) doxology prayers.  I would not be surprised if the Gloria Patria went all the way back to apostolic times.  Indeed, there are elements of it within the letters of St. Paul.

There are two versions of English translations.  First the older, more common translation:

 

Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen.

The more recently translated version which has been installed as the preferred translation in Liturgy of the Hours books:

 

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit:

as it was in the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

There is some confusion between Catholics as to which version to use.  I’m going to offer my opinion as to why I think the newer translation is more accurate.

There are three distinctions between the two versions: (1) the opening “Glory be” versus simply “Glory to;” (2) “shall be” versus “will be” in the last line; and (3) the “world without end” ending versus simply “forever” ending.  Let’s first start with some of the history.

It would be fantastic to find the original formulation of the prayer, which probably was in Aramaic, but I don’t have access to that if it exists at all.  The contemporary adaptation in Aramaic seems to be a back translation to the Aramaic, so I can’t quite trust the existing Aramaic as being the original.  The oldest I can trust is the Greek Orthodox version which translates into

 

Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,

Both now and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.

There are two elements to the composition: a statement in regards to the Trinity and that statement extending for eternity. 

First, I think, one must decide whether the prayer intends a declaration of a static statement as in Ps 41:14 (“Blessed be the Lord…”) or as in the Divine Praises (“Blessed be God, Blessed be His Holy Name…”) or intends an action, and I would call that action an act of bestowing—“to give something as an honour or present” (Cambridge Dictionary)—glory (that is, praise and honor) to the Trinity.  Is the “glory” a static declaration or is it an act of bestowing?  For me, the notion of an action onto the Trinity seems to me to be implied in the earliest form of the prayer. 

Next, “unto ages of ages” is the English translation of the Greek which is a poetic way of saying never ending.  “Now and always” situates the action in the present “now,” but “always” must be looking back toward the eternity from the past since the next phrase covers the eternity going forward.

At some point—probably not very long after the original composition—the prayer was translated into Latin, whether it came from the original Aramaic (if Aramaic was first) or the Greek is not known.  Here is that Latin translation.

 

Gloria Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto,

Sicut erat in principio, et nunc, et semper, et in sæcula sæculorum.

You can see the same elements in the Latin: Glory bestowed onto the Trinity, from now to eternity backwards and forever forward.  The Latin re-orders it in temporal sequence (beginning, now, future) but adds an interesting coda, “et in sæcula sæculorum.”  “Sæcula sæculorum” is the Latin way of saying “onto ages and ages,” which provides a neat closing cadence to the prayer.

The English “Glory Be” translation from the Latin dates to at least the 16^th century.  The oldest known publication comes from the Anglican Book of Common Prayer dating back to 1549.  I could not identify whether the translation was first absorbed by the Anglicans from Catholic sources or if at some point Catholics appropriated a Protestant translation.  But it is interesting to note that the oldest known documentation of the English “Glory be” translation is from a Protestant prayer book.

The newer “Glory to” version was translated by the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC), an ecumenical group established in the 1960s to address common translations of liturgical and prayer texts into English.  In 1971 it translated the Gloria Patri to a revised version.  In 1973 the new translation was adopted as the version for the Liturgy of the Hours. 

So with that historical and syntactical context, let’s compare the two English translations. 

What does the “be” add in the “Glory be to the Father?”  Glory be to the Father instead of Glory to the Father?  There are two reasons I can see the translator might have intended. 

First he could have meant the sentence be in the subjunctive mood.  The subjunctive mood articulates a wish, hope or hypothetical situation.  Hope or hypothetical would not apply here but certainly the translator might have thought the prayer expressed a wish for the Trinity to have glory.  It would be articulating, “May glory be in the Father, son, and Holy Spirit.”  If this is what he meant, I think it would not be an exact translation.  I don’t see the subjunctive mood in the Latin or Greek origins.  He would have added this to the English.

The second possibility is that the translator wanted to emphasize the existence of glory in the Trinity, the static expression I alluded to above.  Here he would be saying, “Glory exists in the Father.”  But he doesn’t use the preposition “in,” he uses the preposition “to.”  Glory be to the Father…  If the translator wanted to emphasize glory’s existence in God then he would have to switch prepositions to “in the Father.”  Frankly I don’t know what the “be” adds.    

Both possible intents of adding the “be” fail to replicate the original prayer.  Perhaps the subjunctive mood comes close.  Perhaps the translator is just trying to echo the Divine Praises.  Nonetheless, one must admit the “Glory Be” articulation gives it a poetic emphasis, and I think is the reason why so many are reluctant to change.  Glory Be has wormed into our lexicon that will just not let go.

Now let’s look at the “shall be” versus the “will be.”  What is the grammatical difference between the two?  The grammatical context is in the last clause: “it was, it is, and it will/shall be…”  It will be or it shall be?  I’ve gone to five different grammar websites, and they each have a different distinction.  I think English Club makes the best argument.  It points out there are two conjugations for the verb “will.”

First conjugation: objective, simple statement of fact:

 

I shall be…

You will be…

He/she/it/they will be…

Second conjugation: subjective, strong assertion, promise or command

 

I will be…

You shall be…

He/she/it/they shall be

It’s the complete opposite between the conjugations.  So which conjugation does the clause intend?  Frankly I have no idea.  Is it an objective, simple statement of fact or is it a strong assertion?  You can make the argument for both, and I don’t think it’s discernable what the original prayer intended.  I would lean to an objective statement of fact, and so “will” I think is more accurate, but I can see someone else having a different opinion.

Finally, we come to the ending phrase “world without end.”  First before we get to the translation, let’s take note that “world without end” is not a true statement both scientifically nor theologically.  We know the world will scientifically come to an end one day when the sun flames out or the universe reverses expansion and collapses on itself or by some other cosmological theory.  But it will all end, and certainly life will end on earth. 

We also know that the world will end theologically.  “The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare” (2 Peter 3:10).  See also Matthew 24 and Revelation 22:13.  So “world without end” is a discordant note on its face.

Now let’s look at the translation.  It appears that the “and world without end” is an attempt to translate the Latin ending phrase, “et in sæcula sæculorum.”  The Latin second half of the prayer praises God from the infinite past (in principio), the present (et nunc), and the future (et semper), and because the original prayer implied not just the future but an infinite future (unto the ages of ages) the Latin translator captured that by adding et in sæcula sæculorum.

So the English translator of the Latin translates in sæcula sæculorum as “world without end.”  But is that what in sæcula sæculorum means?  That’s not what I find.  When I look up the meaning of et in sæcula sæculorum I find “and forever and ever,” which echoes the “unto ages of ages.”  But the Gloria Patri is not the only place where in sæcula sæculorum appears in liturgy.  We find it in the Mass in the great doxology when the priest lifts the consecrated body and blood of Christ.  In Latin the rubrics call for these words:

 

“Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso, est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti, in unitate Spritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria, per omnia sæcula sæculorum.”

It might be more familiar to you in English:

 

“Through Him, with Him and in Him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever.”

So, sæcula sæculorum here is not translated “world without end.”  At Mass we do not say “world without end” to close the doxology.  It is properly translated as “for ever and ever.”  It is incorrectly translated in the Glory Be.

Now let’s look at a couple of translations from other languages and see if they translate that last phrase to “world without end.”  Here is the Gloria Patri in Italian:

 

Gloria al Padre e al Figlio e allo Spirito Santo.

Come era nel principio, ora e sempre, nei secoli dei secoli.

And in Spanish:

Gloria al Padre, Y al Hijo, Y al Espíritu Santo,

Como era en el principio, Ahora y siempre, Por los siglos de los siglos.

​Amén.

Unlike the English, both the Italian nei secoli dei secoli and the Spanish  Por los siglos de los siglos translates to forever and ever.  [Notice too, both in Italian and in Spanish Gloria al… translates to “Glory to,” not “Glory be.”]

So we have seen that “world without end” phrase doesn’t make logical sense, isn’t the correct translation for sæcula sæculorum, and is not found in the translation of any other language.  One can conclude that “world without end” is a mistranslation when the Gloria Patri was first translated into English.

To conclude, it was probably within the English translator’s discretion to translate “Glory be” instead of “Glory to,” within the translator’s discretion to translate “shall be” rather than “will be,” though I think both are subtly less precise, but incorrectly translated the ending phrase.  Therefore I think the 1971 corrected translation (Glory to…) should be the preferred English translation.

Sunday Meditation: Me, the Unprofitable Servant

On the Twenty-Seventh Sunday in Ordinary Time in Year C, the apostles ask Jesus to increase their faith.  And Jesus tells them they only need a little bit of faith to do miracles.  But then that leads him to something else, to what it means to be a humble servant of God.  Why does one lead to the other? 

 

Here is the Gospel passage.

 

The apostles said to the Lord, "Increase our faith."

The Lord replied,

"If you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you would say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.

 

"Who among you would say to your servant who has just come in from plowing or tending sheep in the field, 'Come here immediately and take your place at table'? Would he not rather say to him, 'Prepare something for me to eat. Put on your apron and wait on me while I eat and drink. You may eat and drink when I am finished'?  Is he grateful to that servant because he did what was commanded?  So should it be with you.

When you have done all you have been commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.'"

~Lk 17:5-10

What may confuse you in the parable is that the worker out in the field is asked to do more work when he walks in, and the worker, we are told, would prefer to do more work.  The expectation would be to have the worker “take his place at the table.”  Jesus expects more work, not a reward.  But that is the twist of the parable.  The Master of the house is God and we should be willing to do more and more work for the Lord, and have the humility to not be rewarded.   

Fr. Terrance Chantier of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate explains the passage.

I liked this from Fr, Terrance: pride has “I” in the center while trust has “U” in the center.  Lord, please increase not just my faith but my humility.  Perhaps what Jesus detected from the apostles was a show of spiritual pride when they asked Him to increase their faith.

I chose for the pastoral Pope Leo XIV from this day’s homily which was coordinated with a celebration for the Jubilees for World Missionaries and for Migrants.

I have become impressed with Pope Leo’s homilies.  You can read it here.  There are so many heartfelt ideas in this homily.  Let me quote a couple.

“This is a salvation that is fulfilled when we take responsibility and, with the compassion of the Gospel, care for the suffering of others; it is a salvation that leads the way, silently and apparently without success, in daily words and actions, which become precisely like the tiny seed of which Jesus speaks; it is a salvation that slowly grows when we become “unworthy servants”, namely when we place ourselves at the service of the Gospel and of our brothers and sisters, not seeking our own interests but only bringing God’s love to the world.”

And the first line of his concluding paragraph: “I entrust all of you to the intercession of Mary, the first of her Son’s missionaries, who went in haste to the hill country of Judea, carrying Jesus in her womb and putting herself at the service of Elizabeth.”  If there was ever a perfect example of an unprofitable servant, it was our Blessed Mother,

 

Sunday Meditation: “When you have done all you have bee commanded, say, 'We are unprofitable servants; we have done what we were obliged to do.'"

 

The wonderful “Servant Song” for our hymn.

 

 

What do you want of me, Lord?

Where do you want me to serve you?

Where can I sing your praises.

I am your song.

Sunday Meditation: The Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man

On the Twenty-Sixth Sunday of Ordinary Time in Year C, we hear Jesus tell us the Parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man.  Have you ever passed a beggar on the street without even thinking about him?  I know I have.  Three years ago I mentioned how this parable convicts.   Sure we are to use our prudential judgement when handing out money to beggars, but often that is just an excuse.  Three years ago I mentioned how the rich man is in hell without committing an actual physical sin.  His sin is of omission, and yes that can be just as grave as any consciously committed sin.  Some other things to point out this time around.  Lazarus is in heaven for not necessarily doing anything of good.  He is just in heaven because he suffered.  In some ways, this parable is a fulfillment of the Job’s suffering in the Book of Job.  Another observation is that Lazarus is a Christ figure having undergone his own passion.

Here is the Gospel passage.

 

Jesus said to the Pharisees:

"There was a rich man who dressed in purple garments and fine linen and dined sumptuously each day.

And lying at his door was a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who would gladly have eaten his fill of the scraps that fell from the rich man's table.

Dogs even used to come and lick his sores.

When the poor man died, he was carried away by angels to the bosom of Abraham.

The rich man also died and was buried and from the netherworld, where he was in torment, he raised his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side.

And he cried out, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me.

Send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am suffering torment in these flames.'

Abraham replied,

'My child, remember that you received what was good during your lifetime while Lazarus likewise received what was bad; but now he is comforted here, whereas you are tormented.

Moreover, between us and you a great chasm is established to prevent anyone from crossing who might wish to go from our side to yours or from your side to ours.'

He said, 'Then I beg you, father, send him to my father's house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment.'

But Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the prophets.

Let them listen to them.'

He said, 'Oh no, father Abraham, but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.'

Then Abraham said, 'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

~Lk 16:19-31

 

Dr. Brant Pitre explains the passage.

Love of neighbor requires compassion for those who are struggling, and compassion requires some commission (as opposed to omission) of generosity. 

The pastoral homily I found most interesting was that from Archbishop Edward J. Weisenburger of Detroit.  The tables have turned.

Another thing that is interesting to me is that Jesus is speaking this directly to the Pharisees.  I like that the Archbishop gives this challenge to archbishops as well.

 

Sunday Meditation: “'If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead.'"

 

Let’s return to John Michael Talbot for today’s hymn with “The Cry of the Poor.”

 

“The Lord hears the cry of the poor.”

Sunday Meditation: The Parable of the Unjust Stewart

After that brief interlude last Sunday with the Exaltation of the Cross, today on the Twenty-Fifth Sunday in Ordinary Time in Year C we return to Jesus’s journey to Jerusalem.  Today we get one of the most misunderstood parable in the entire New Testament.  Today, Jesus offers us the Parable of the Unjust Stewart or sometimes called the Dishonest Stewart.  No, He is not giving us permission to steal.  Three years ago I posted on this very Gospel passage with an embedded video from Dr. Brant Pitre explaining the cultural context and the nuanced theme of the passage.  In summary, the gist is that “you are to pay off spiritual debts—sins—with the Lord’s money, so that those you whose debts you pay off will welcome you into eternal happiness.”  It’s rather complex and I urge you to go back and read that post and listen to Dr. Pitre.

 

Here is the Gospel passage.

 

Jesus said to his disciples,

"A rich man had a steward who was reported to him for squandering his property.

He summoned him and said,

'What is this I hear about you?

Prepare a full account of your stewardship, because you can no longer be my steward.'

The steward said to himself, 'What shall I do, now that my master is taking the position of steward away from me?

I am not strong enough to dig and I am ashamed to beg.

I know what I shall do so that, when I am removed from the stewardship, they may welcome me into their homes.'

He called in his master's debtors one by one.

To the first he said,

'How much do you owe my master?'

He replied, 'One hundred measures of olive oil.'

He said to him, 'Here is your promissory note.

Sit down and quickly write one for fifty.'

Then to another the steward said, 'And you, how much do you owe?'

He replied, 'One hundred kors of wheat.'

The steward said to him, 'Here is your promissory note; write one for eighty.'

And the master commended that dishonest steward for acting prudently.

 

"For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.

I tell you, make friends for yourselves with dishonest wealth, so that when it fails, you will be welcomed into eternal dwellings.

The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones.

If, therefore, you are not trustworthy with dishonest wealth, who will trust you with true wealth?

If you are not trustworthy with what belongs to another, who will give you what is yours?

No servant can serve two masters.

He will either hate one and love the other,

or be devoted to one and despise the other.

You cannot serve both God and mammon."

~Lk 16:1-13

 

Dr. Pitre explained it one way.  Fr. Tim Peters does a magnificent job of explaining it another way.  I think this is the fullest, most complete explanation.

The moral is actually to use your shrewdness, all of your gifts to help those in need.  Those gifts don’t belong to you.  They are the Lord’s lent out to you, the unrighteous mammon.  Using your wisdom and prudence, you solve matters for those in debt, and then you will be part of the children of the light.

I was so happy to find that one of my favorite homilists, Fr. Joseph Mary of the Capuchin Franciscans, recorded a homily on this passage.  This is incredibly entertaining.

So who is your master?  If all homilies were like that, we would all be waiting in line to listen to Fr. Joseph. 

 

Sunday Meditation: “"For the children of this world are more prudent in dealing with their own generation than are the children of light.”

 

Fr. Tim’s exhortation to serve somebody recalled Bob Dylan’s “Gotta Serve Somebody.”  I have posted that heart convicting song before, so instead I am going to post a rendition by the Melbourne Mass Gospel Choir, featuring Suzannah Espie.  This is wonderful.

 

I don’t know Suzannah Espie but man can she sing.  Kudos to the entire choir.  They are wonderful.

Sunday Meditation: The Exaltation of the Holy Cross

Whenever September 14^th falls on a Sunday, it becomes the feast day of the Exultation of the Cross while still keeping count of the ordinal number counting.  It is still the 24^th Sunday in Ordinary Time but superseded by the feast day.  If you were not aware “Ordinary Time” does not mean it’s ordinary but that it is counted by ordinal numbers.  A proper definition of “exalt” is in order.  From Meriam-Websters:

 

Exalt

(transitive verb)

1: to raise in rank, power, or character

2: to elevate by praise or in estimation : glorify

3: obsolete : elate

4: to raise high : elevate

5: to enhance the activity of : intensify

 

I think we mean all five of those definitions by exalt, but perhaps “glorify” says it all.

 

With the Feast Day, we take a break from Gospel of Luke and turn to a well-known passage in John.

 

 

Jesus said to Nicodemus:

"No one has gone up to heaven except the one who has come down from heaven, the Son of Man.

And just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

 

For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him.

~Jn 3:13-17

 

Fr. Geoffrey Plant gives a detailed explanation of why the holiday and how it was established.

What was a symbol of terror was transformed into a symbol of love.

The pastoral homily is by someone I have not posted before, Fr. Mark Mary of the Franciscan Friars of the Renewal.  

We exalt the cross because it is the instrument of Jesus’s victory over death.

 

Sunday Meditation: “Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, so that everyone who believes in him may have eternal life."

 

For the hymn, let’s go with Dan Schutte’s “Glory of the Cross.”

 

 

Let us ever glory in the cross of Christ,

our salvation and our hope.

Let us bow in homage to the Lord of Life,

who was broken to make us whole.

There is no greater love, as blessed as this:

to lay down one’s life for a friend.

Let us ever glory in the cross of Christ

and the triumph of God’s great love.

 

 

We adore You oh Christ and we praise You, because by Your Holy Cross You have redeemed the world.

 

Sunday Meditation: The Cost of Discipleship

So last week the gist of Jesus’s message was a disciple’s need to have humility.  Perhaps that wasn’t very shocking.  Today, on the Twenty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time, Jesus, in His sermon on the pilgrimage to Jerusalem, stuns the journeying crowd: you must hate mother, father, family, and everything to follow Him.  We know this is hyperbole, but I suspect it’s because the great crowds following and probably pressing up against Him that causes Him to reach for a sensational metaphor. 

 

 

Great crowds were traveling with Jesus, and he turned and addressed them, “If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.

Which of you wishing to construct a tower does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if there is enough for its completion?

Otherwise, after laying the foundation and finding himself unable to finish the work the onlookers should laugh at him and say,

‘This one began to build but did not have the resources to finish.’

Or what king marching into battle would not first sit down and decide whether with ten thousand troops he can successfully oppose another king advancing upon him with twenty thousand troops?  But if not, while he is still far away, he will send a delegation to ask for peace terms.

In the same way, anyone of you who does not renounce all his possessions cannot be my disciple.” 

~Lk 14:25-33

 

I hadn’t found a homily from Fr. Terrance Chartier of the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculate in quite a while.  He’s one of my favorite homilists.  He doesn’t disappoint.

I love the way Fr. Terrance links Jesus’s hyperbole to Old Testament examples, showing the continuity between Old and New.  But of even more importance I think is Fr. Terrance’s pointing out that you can’t really love your family as you should until you have prioritized love for God first.  Jesus is the source.  One flows to the other.  Praise be Jesus, and don’t forget our Blessed Mother’s birthday tomorrow.

Jeff Cavins provides a solid pastoral homily on this difficult passage.

No, don’t hate mom and dad.  But you need to count the cost of discipleship.  That is why Jesus provides the builder and war general illustrations.

 

Sunday Meditation: “Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”

 

I absolutely love this Christian hymn, “All for Jesus.”  I don’t know who sings it, but it’s lovely.

 

Let my hands perform His bidding,

Let my feet run in His ways;

Let my eyes see Jesus only,

Let my lips speak forth His praise.