2

This is one rendering of The Glory Be:

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.

And this is another:

Glory be 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.

Does the Catholic Church say which of these is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology)? If none is, what is the correct rendering in english of The Glory Be (The Doxology) according to the Catholic Church?

This is what got me thinking, that the Mass in English has a New Translation.

  • 3
    I don't think there is a "correct" rendering. Wouldn't any official communication about this from the Holy See be in Latin anyway? – Matt Gutting Jan 19 '16 at 15:17
  • 1
    The usual translation of "et semper, et in saecula saeculorum" is the first of the two in your question. A more literal translation would be "and always, and unto ages of ages." – Andreas Blass Jan 19 '16 at 15:20
  • @AndreasBlass That appears to be the answer. –  Jan 19 '16 at 15:22
  • Or "worlds of worlds". "Saeculum" can mean either. – Matt Gutting Jan 19 '16 at 16:16
  • 6
    If you're looking for an answer from Catholic dogma, can you explain why you expect there to be one? Has the church ruled definitively on English translation issues in the past? If you're just looking for an answer from linguistic scholarship, this isn't the right place. – Mr. Bultitude Jan 19 '16 at 17:15
  • @MattGutting Indeed, "saeculum" can mean age or world (or, if I remember correctly, century), but in this context "age" seems to be the intended meaning. As far as I know, one might even consider mixtures of the possible translations, like "ages of the worlds", but I'll stick with "ages of ages" as the most appropriate translation. – Andreas Blass Jan 19 '16 at 20:26
  • @AndreasBlass that's why we have "worlds without end", I think: "worlds of worlds". – Matt Gutting Jan 19 '16 at 20:29
  • 2
    @Mr.Bultitude I believe they have. I don't recall where, but I remember reading that, for example, in the good Friday prayer perfidia must be translated to "faithless," and not "treacherous," despite the modern English connotation of the latter. – Andrew Jan 20 '16 at 03:09
  • 3
    What's with the downvotes? I believe the question is on topic. If the answer is in the negative (No, the CC does not say which is the...), it's not a bad question. – Andrew Jan 20 '16 at 03:12
  • 2
    @and yeah, I cant abide these downvotes, makes me want to go upvote everything fms has ever done on this site. I think I've asked this question though... – Peter Turner Jan 20 '16 at 03:15
  • Here's my related, but not wholly satisfying question – Peter Turner Jan 20 '16 at 03:18
  • @Andrew and Peter Turner Thank you! Keep up the good fight. I plod on. It is worthwhile, very worthwhile indeed. Thank you both for the encouragement, it is truly appreciated. –  Jan 20 '16 at 04:12
  • @PeterTurner linked your question as related to theis question of mine: In Church History, when and how did The Glory Be (The Doxology) originate?. Thank you! –  Jan 20 '16 at 04:15
  • @Andrew & Peter The downvotes were probably for the earlier version of the question which just asked what was correct (and was closed as off-topic before being edited). – ThaddeusB Jan 20 '16 at 04:42
  • @ThaddeusB my experience is that even after the edit, the downvoters never return to act. Right now the voting is +3/-4. Those 4 haven't acted after the edit. –  Jan 20 '16 at 04:49
  • 1
    @FMS That is correct - most people only view a question (or answer) once and vote based on the then-current state of it. I was merely explaining the reason for downvotes to an apparently fine question (i.e. that they were made earlier in the question's history), not saying they were justified based on the current version.... Although posts are not normally edited for the worse, the same would likely happen in such cases (i.e. old upvotes remain in place). It's kind of just the nature of the site. It may seem odd to us super regulars, but most voters don't check in daily or read every edit. – ThaddeusB Jan 20 '16 at 04:52
  • @ThaddeusB Thanks! Very reasonable take on things. –  Jan 20 '16 at 05:15

2 Answers2

1

An Official version is available On Line from the Vatican

This link takes you to the compendium of the catechism of the Catholic Church which is hosted at the Vatican's web page. In Appendix A, Common Prayers, the Gloria Patri is rendered with Latin next to English.

English:

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.

Latin

Glória Patri et Fílio et Spirítui Sancto. Sicut erat in princípio, et nunc et semper et in sæ´cula sæculórum. Amen.

Given the source, it's about as official as one can ask for.

Note:

  1. In this prayer's case, unlike the Hail Holy Queen, Te Deum, Magnificat, and Benedictus prayers, the Vatican did not break it into "UK English" and "US English" versions. This indicates that they went to some trouble to render it to the best of their ability.

  2. Given the 2011 changes to the Liturgy, in English, to get closer to literal translations from the Latin into the English, there may be a change in time (the RCC moves slowly, when it moves at all) to render that prayer more literally. Since the date for the Compendium seems to be the year 2005, there may be an update coming. Or not.

KorvinStarmast
  • 6,726
  • 6
  • 29
  • 42
1

As is recounted here, both are considered legitimate translations, although they are typically found in different contexts:

  • The "will be forever" form is found in most translations when playing the Liturgy of the Hours.

  • The "world without end" form, is more common (being the older translation) in other contexts. That's the one that was taught when I was in CCD, and in most groups I've been in that pray the Rosary together, that one is almost always used.

James Kingsbery
  • 532
  • 2
  • 10