Have mercy on those who criticize.

He never said or implied that this was to be sung at Mass. He was clear to state that he:

Wrote a setting of the Mass in English using essentially the Catholic version of the BCP.

Essentially a Catholic version of the BCP.

He did not say to approach this work as a glorious setting of the Mass that should replace all others and be esteemed for centuries. Instead, he said, "Have fun with this piece."

And there are those that serve in Anglican, Episcopal, Methodist and other services (either because of faith conviction or to make a lot of money for playing one service a Sunday instead of playing 5 Masses a Sunday, those people may have fun with it and sing it.

It's not a sin to change the words of the Glory to God. Is it?

"Have fun with this piece." It's a new year. Think positively.

As far as criticism of this piece. There are things I like, things I do not like, but at least someone is trying!

[as far as referring to it as a Mass...didn't Bernstein do something along the same line?

Folks don't post their compositions on this MusicaSacra Forum for them to be used at garden parties. They're usually suggesting that something they wrote might be useful to some Forum reader(s) in the liturgy. If not that, then perhaps in a concert setting.

Well and good. But, if proposed for liturgical use, whose liturgy? If it is, in fact, no one's liturgy then the purpose for the posting and the soliciting of comments is at least questionable. Accordingly, I questioned.

Carlos, I share with you that I contacted the site webmaster to see if perhaps he could avail you of the exegencies of posting one's compositions here when one is both new to the forum and from "out of the blue." Commentary from others and yourself has since negated the possible retraction for your own review. I truly wish you'd introduced yourself in some other manner so that we all could have benefited from more perspective. C'est la vie.
I would, were I you, contact via the Private Message feature of this forum our colleague, CHGiffen, founder of the Choral Public Domain Library and an esteemed composer himself, and ask for some advice regarding a serious self-examination and review, and perhaps a private sharing of your work with trusted, honest colleagues prior to unveiling it at large here or elsewhere.
That said....
1. The assignation "With Pomp" seems antiquated if not pretentious in the 21st century.
2. FINALE is easily manipulated so that such assignations, tempo markings, chord assignments, etc. do not overlay and obscure one another. This also needs to be recognized upon finalizing a pdf version of your score.
3. Initially, whether for Roman or Ordinariate use, syllabic declamation (em-PHA-sis) is an immediate issue, even from the annuciatory phrase. But it's even more evident at WE praise Thee. As opposed to "we PRAISE Thee..." and so forth.
4. I can't determine why the so-named Bmb5 (vii dim) with its amplified tri-tone is carried from "earth" straight over to "peace." Perhaps you can illuminate us?
5. Which also leads to general problems of nomenclature of chords. In m4 you cannot be at ease with leaving the organ accompaniment showing a G# when the chord assignment requires the enharmonic Ab. It matters.
6. Be consistent with articulations; if you use a slur in measure 7 over one syllable, also use it in the prior measure 6.
7. No one here objects much to rubric bypasses of basic theory, but in my experience, in all genres, doubling the 3rd (in this case the C# in m.14) simply doesn't ever sound or feel "good."
8. In m.15 the voice leading asked of the altos isn't as tenable as simple revoicing the change to the tenor/bass parts.
9. Intevallic leaps in m.16 are somewhat inexplicable, similar to the issue with m15 alto leap.....

I don't wish to belabor the analysis any further. Please don't stop honoring God with your inspiration. But please carefully consider all aspects of what you wish to share with your peers who've labored long in these fields.
God's blessings to you this new year.

This text does differ slightly from the text in Rite One in the Book of Divine Worship (p. 285). The marked words from the BDW text are omitted in the score above:

O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father Almighty
[...]
with the Holy Ghost, art most high in the glory of God the Father.

Of course, the liturgical norms require that the approved text be used in full, so the omissions could be an obstacle. Probably our members with experience in Ordinariate congregations could confirm if that's the case.

Vansensei, can you tell us if you've been able to perform the above setting in practice yet?

I'll post a revision with the added words among some others, but with the latter, I think "art most high" isn't needed because "with the Holy Ghost in the glory of God the Father..." is "cum Sancto Spiritu in gloria Dei Patris..." in the original
Latin

This is where it gets touchy. What we think is not acceptable - the church has, in its infinite wisdom, decided what exactly are the words to be used at Mass. Also in its less than infinite wisdom, it has decided to take the Latin words and let experts around the world interpret the words in the local language.

This would not be a problem and makes a lot of sense. It's one thing to read a translation of the music you are hearing sung, but yet another to have to fit a workable translation that is also singable.

No one has succeeded in doing this in English in our lifetimes and, regrettably the Anglicans have succeeded but even they have fooled with it...

If you are Catholic you've been inundated with at least two different mass translations and many, many poor translations and even worse, texts sung at mass that hardly being there...even secular music such as "Leaving' on a Jet Plane" after mass when a military chaplain left Berlin, Germany - a questionable practice...but even worse when it was the communion meditation the next week.

On this forum you'll find a desire to be very "proper" when writing music for the liturgy. The words should be intact and rarely repeated. The music should make you think of church and not even hint of anything secular. But, like when I was driving in France recently and this road sign appeared with a few words underneath it, I was told to ignore it and keep on going...there are no guidelines yet for composers who post here, so we have no choice yet to keep on going.

Melo,

I thought that I was saying just what you said above, and was merely rambling on about why he didn't get a standard, "might be better if you were to stick to using the current approved text if you are writing this for the NO Mass" message.

Instead he got the "Garden Parties" message.

... a setting of the Mass in English using essentially the Catholic version of the BCP.

This would be the Book of Divine Worship of the Anglican Ordinariate, yes? Maybe the text wouldn't be acceptable for the Ordinary Form, but it could be appropriate amongst those of us attached to the Anglican Use/Ordinariate. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

I know Haydn cut from the Credo...

Schubert, wasn't it?

Oh, yes… Thank you.