Random thought: Gregorian Missal
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I wonder if the translators for the Gregorian missal could have ever imagined that their translations would be used so widely.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    They were highly praised when first released, by Paul Le Voir and others.
    Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    The introduction (wink wink) makes very clear (nudge nudge) that the translation is not official and as not intended for liturgical use (know what I mean, know what I mean).

    I get the feeling that they figured it might happen, and so:
    a) made sure it was of high enough quality, AND
    b) absolved themselves of "legal" responsibility by explaining that you shouldn't.

    Smart guys, those monks.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    There's still a part of me (however small) that wishes it didn't happen. I know, I know... the sung propers don't need an official translation, and if we waited for the final MR3 propers (when they match), SEP would have been needlessly delayed.

    Still, I find it telling that the new Gregorian Missal employs MR3's translations when the Latin of the sung proper matches the spoken proper.

    I don't know why - maybe it's the "catholic" part of me, but I'd rather be on the same page with something official from the Church than using something unofficial if I don't have to.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Yes, using the official English wherever possible makes it clearer that the choir is singing a real liturgical text.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    I'd rather be on the same page with something official from the Church than using something unofficial if I don't have to.

    What's the problem? The translations in the Gregorian Missal are usually on the same page as the chant.
    Thanked by 2Adam Wood SkirpR
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    "The introduction makes very clear that the translation is not official and as not intended for liturgical use"

    On the other hand, the Missal Propers ("Spoken Propers") were definitely not intended to be sung:

    "The entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal were intended to be recited, not sung . . .” Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975), 891.

    More quotes are here
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    P.S.

    Are any American sellers offering the new Gregorian Missal ?
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    On the other hand, the Missal Propers ("Spoken Propers") were definitely not intended to be sung:

    "The entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal were intended to be recited, not sung . . .” Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948-1975), 891.


    Pardon my sarcasm, but does this mean that when singing in the vernacular, one must seek out an entirely different translation than the one in the Missal when the Latin of the Missal antiphon matches the Latin of the Graduale antiphon - as they quite often do?
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    SkirpR,

    I can only speak for myself. I think the whole thing is bizarre and harmful. It was not thought out. I don't see why the Introits and Communions were considered "not able to be proclaimed." They are just SCRIPTURE !!!!!

    But . . . what can we do?
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    It's true that the Missal antiphons were not intended to be sung, but recited, but the most recent legislation explicitly allows for their sung use. It's not quite the same thing as the Gregorian Missal translations, which have received no such legislative permission.

    That said, if much of the garbage slipped into "alius cantus" can get through the rigorous gauntlet of Catholic text approval, then the Gregorian Missal translations are probably okay.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    That said, if much of the garbage slipped into "alius cantus" can get through the rigorous gauntlet of Catholic text approval, then the Gregorian Missal translations are probably okay.


    I have no problem with the Gregorian Missal translations, I just think we should move in the direction of using the ones from the new edition of the Gregorian Missal, since they correspond with the Missal when possible.

    I believe I purchased mine online direct from Solesmes, but I imagine US booksellers would have them by now.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    It's not quite the same thing as the Gregorian Missal translations, which have received no such legislative permission.

    Andrew, although I am not an expert in this area, I don't think that's fully correct. It seems to me that the USCCB Secretariat has said "one bishop's approval applies to all." So, for instance, the GIA publications are not just approved for Chicago. And so forth.

    Several Ordinaries have approved the use of the Gregorian Missal Translations. One example is the Vatican II Hymnal. And (hopefully) within a few weeks, yet another explicit approval will be given for them, in the form of the Lalemant Propers. Please note: approval is expected (based on conversations with the Office of Worship), but I cannot say this with certainty at this time.

    Again, I'm not an expert in these matters and I am happy to "yield" if I am not clear here.
    Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Jeff, regarding another question I have about the Lalement Propers, see my just-added thread: http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/8701/can-the-gradual-be-sung-in-english-in-the-of#Item_1
  • Ignoto
    Posts: 126
    P.S.

    Are any American sellers offering the new Gregorian Missal ?


    The 2012 edition of the Gregorian Missal is being sold in the U.S. by Paraclete Press.

    My observations are the same as SkirpR's: In many cases, the antiphon texts in the Gregorian Missal are now the same as the antiphon texts given in the Roman Missal.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 967
    The English translations of the propers from the Graduale Romanum used in the Lumen Christi Missal are consistent with the ones found in the third edition of the English Roman Missal, and have been approved for liturgical use.
    Thanked by 2SkirpR Ignoto
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 341
    Do them in Latin, problem solved.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Don't use any propers at all, problem avoided.

    Oh wait, but that's not a very good solution to people's real-life issues ... :-/
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,500
    Probably a redundant question, but is there an easy list of translated offertories from the GM?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 967
    The following is a list of all Offertory Antiphons from the Lumen Christi Missal (Sundays and Feasts). There are, of course, some antiphons missing; and this isn't the English translation from the Gregorian Missal, but the one from the LCM (which is approved for liturgical use). Nevertheless, I hope this may be useful.
    OffertoryAntiphons.pdf
    70K
    Thanked by 2Ignoto Kathy
  • Andrew Motyka
    Posts: 944
    Several Ordinaries have approved the use of the Gregorian Missal Translations. One example is the Vatican II Hymnal.


    I've never really considered this approach. If the Vatican II Hymnal uses the Gregorian Missal translations, and the Vatican II Hymnal is approved for liturgical use, does that approval retroactively apply to the Gregorian Missal translations? It would make sense if it does, and to be fair I haven't even checked if the Gregorian Missal translations are approved on their own account. I meant that they weren't approved in the same ways that the Roman Missal or Revised Grail Psalter were approved.

    Or is that a distinction without a difference? It might be.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    I'm not really sure about a lot of this stuff. I know the Gregorian Missal was originally published in France. Looking over the history of all these things, there has been great freedom shown since the very beginning (c. 1969) and as time went on, some things were clarified, others became "muddy."

    I got an Email a few days ago from somebody asking if they could use music printed in the Philippines for a (mainly) English Mass which has a lot of Filipino attendees.

    I basically said, "Uh ... I have no clue. According to the books, no. Yet, many do."

    I was unable to advise that person in a meaningful way. I told them to write their Bishop.
  • jpal
    Posts: 365
    For what it's worth, this document, officially approved for use in England and Wales, has original translations of GR texts different than those that appear in the Gregorian Missal.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    For those who own the new Gregorian Missal, would you kindly share whether or not the Sequences are printed before or after the Alleluias? Just curious. I realize they're now to be sung before.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,185
    @ClemensRomanus, the Easter and Pentecost sequences follow the Alleluias in the revised Gregorian Missal.
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    Thank you.
    Thanked by 1Paul_Onnonhoaraton
Add a Comment