Hmm...I'm sorry, I don't know...I'm not having any problems with it. The way I came across it was http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=25772 and then clicked on the last "Additional sources..." link in the box. Maybe you could try that roundabout way.

https://youtu.be/-N0Dto5s9fg

might work better.

As the cliché advises, if you have nothing good to say about something, say nothing. In Paul Inwood's litany here there manages to be a good melodic and harmonic construct. Good. Just good. I perhaps have a skosh more regard for Paul's prolific repertoire than most here, and he's a fine fellow personally.
Okay....two things first came to mind at first listen and blush:
1. In the immortal words of Peggy Lee, "Is that all there is?"
2. Haven't I heard a much more expansively soaring version of this before, using the same formula? Yes, and it wasn't Berthier. I remember, it was Allegri and the immortal "Miserere."

I write here neither to praise nor bury Paul's work in this piece. However, to balance all of the laudatory commentary found elsewhere, some of it hyperbolic praise so much so that the piece, without actually hearing it, is regarded as innovative and aesthetically perfect. I really don't want to discuss the piece per se, though others should if they feel so inclined.
But I tend to believe that TPTB in our ecclesial courts have decided that the K.I.S.S. rule is actually an eleventh commandment. Such a concern is almost a dead horse that occasionally gets re-beaten now and then: Must we sacrifice inspired and truly, self-evidently beautiful and inspired sacred music at the expense of accessibility to the masses of faithful? Much commentary about Paul's setting congratulates him for writing such a hauntingly, memorable melody for the antiphon. Well, that's true. But coming in at only four measures, that inescapable melody actually also qualifies as essentially an "ear worm" sort of deliberation. (Is that all there is?) The verses are a little more harmonically complex, but not by much. Again, to say something "good," the average listener would consign it upon first hearing to being clearly meant for "church."
But as a DM who's métier over the last few years has been giving exposure for my choristers and PIPs it's not just about this sort of gebrauchsmusick (and there's nothing wrong about that.) But by higher standards than the old MCW suggested, shouldn't presenting the sublime inventions of LaRocca, Allen, Morber, Rice in his larger works, Quick, Kwasniewski, Giffen, Jernberg, Mueller and Jon Naples' OFFERTORIOS, doesn't the Holy Spirit have wider wings than simple, if not mundane ostinatos? We talk often about noble simplicity. But it seems to me what represents universal Catholicism ought to make the subtle shift from simplicity to actual elegance. Any other thoughts?

Does anyone else hear....?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgayORZ0CTY

I tried.

It appears that the Apostolic See wanted a congregational piece as the inno ufficiale for the Jubilee of Mercy. They asked a Jesuit priest to write a text, and then they asked a number of composers to make musical settings. They chose Paul's setting as the winning entry. The form of Paul's piece is hardly surprising in view of Fr. Costa's text.

I suppose the Sedes Apostolica could have opted instead for a choir piece as the official anthem for the Jubilee. They could have chosen the Allegri and mandated that it be used at least monthly in every parish worldwide. Parishes without the choral forces to pull it off could have been allowed to play a recording instead.

So as things stand, the Church has an official anthem, which parishes are free to use or not. Parishes may also use the Allegri if they are able, although playing a recording is not allowed.

I am thankful that they chose this setting, rather than some happy-clappy "Mercy, Mercy, Hallelujah, Mercy" kind of thing. Chances are I won't be using it for Mass, for the simple reason of the liturgical appropriateness of the text (cf. GIRM 48) - it doesn't quite seem to "work" for Midnight Mass - though it could probably work during Lent; and would also be good during extra-liturgical or para-liturgical devotions during the Holy Year.

Charles, my earlier posting only pointed out how the official anthem, a musical setting for congregation and choir, came about. This discussion is about that anthem.

I never said you disparaged Paul Inwood's piece or his abilities as a composer. In fact, I never referred to you at all. Rest assured, you've earned no rebuke from me.

I can see myself:

1.) Getting quite bored of this piece quickly.
2.) Having to 'adjust' the official music slightly to make it a more practical proposition for my parish's congregation.
3.) Putting up with the 'Youf Band' attempting to "Jazz it up" because to them it sounds too much like funeral music.

Ok., I've found a way to say something good about the piece.

For those who like ostinati, it will remind them of the music of Taize.
For those who are connected to ancient advertising jingles, it will resonate, in the same way that the Gloria from Mass of Christ the Savior does.
For those who are attached to older liturgical forms, it incorporates the use of Latin.

those who are connected to ancient advertising jingles,

That Coca-Cola song is, actually, my favorite advertising Jingle of all time.

OF ALL TIME

melofluent: Let's call the whole thing off.

Please, can we?
Can I take this opportunity to say that I feel curmudgeonly about the whole idea?
Year of this, year of that, year of anything.
Marketing "taken to the next level" with theme songs and wrist-bands.
Steeling myself against hawkers of teeshirts and ash-trays and coaster sets.
Sigh.

Would anyone else here be interested in a 1-page reduction of this piece for Congregational melody and organ? I can provide the original key of C minor, or a slightly higher version in D minor.

In my opinion it sounds more pleading in D minor and just a bit stodgy in C minor.

Well, a literal translation of the text would be "merciful like a [the] father" Remember that Latin does not have definite or indefinite articles. Also, it was fairly common to leave out the verb "to be" in sentences. So the implied text is "Misericordes sicut pater est." which would translate as "He [God] is merciful like a father."

 

I think we should celebrate the Year of the Underpaid Church Musician. ;-)

AOL=on

Me too.

AOL=off

If the idea is Misericordes (estote) sicut (est) pater, perhaps my Latinity is not developed well enough to let me feel comfortable with omitting the estote. Leaving out the "est" seems normal and unproblematic -- the omission of present-tense esse, leaving little room for ambiguity. On the other hand, omitting the imperative verb estote is an unusual ellipsis that leaves the phrase ambiguous. The reader is left to guess what the missing verb is: sunt? estis? erunt? erimus? Any would fit the phrase and make a grammatically well-formed sentence, but with unclear substance.

I took it in the sense of an acclamation, almost a slogan, so that the "missing verb" would be simus, or sumus.

I don’t see a problem with “Misericordes sicut Pater,” just as I don’t see a problem with “Dominus vobiscum.” Neither can be accused of being a poor Latin construction because it lacks a verb. The latter formula has been used in the Roman rite since the time of the primitive Church. There is a longer version (“Dominus sit semper vobiscum”) that is also used in liturgy, but the Church has never felt it necessary to add the so-called “missing verb” to the shorter formula.

The Mass of Paul VI still uses “Dominus vobiscum” several times during the liturgy. It still is not seen as a problem that “sit” or “est” is not included in the Latin formula.

The issue of the “missing verb” only became a problem with the introduction of hand missals and vernacular translations. Many (or most, or all?) modern European languages (I am not at all familiar with the many languages of Asians, Africans, and indigenous peoples of North and South America and the Pacific) will find the literal translation (“Lord with you” and its equivalent in other languages) to be incomplete. An article and a verb need to be supplied in these languages. Should the verb be a translation of a missing “sit” (may he be) or “est” (he is)? There is no clear consensus even among Latin scholars. And so, a priest would be translating correctly when using “The Lord is with you” instead of “The Lord be with you.” It is a correct translation, but its use would not be correct liturgical practice because the latter is the approved English translation, and the former is not.

“Misericordes sicut Pater” needs no verb, unless it is being translated into a vernacular language. But it has not been. It remains in Latin in all the vernacular versions of the official anthem.

Yes, exactly who the “misericordes” (a plural adjective) are is ambiguous or, perhaps more correctly, multivalent. It could be we, or you (plural), or they. Is there something wrong with leaving the ambiguity/multivalence in the Latin text? The same goes for the “missing verb,” whether one thinks it should be estote, sumus, estis, sunt, simus, sitis, sint, or something else. Is there something wrong when one thinks that he or she is saying “May we be merciful like the Father,” or "May you be merciful like the Father," or even “We are merciful like the Father” when he or she sings “Misericordes sicut Pater.” In my opinion, no.

One thing is certain about “Misericordes sicut Pater.” The “missing article” is certainly to be translated as definite, not indefinite. And that’s because “Pater” has been capitalized in the Latin text. “Merciful like a father” is a mistranslation because of that capital “P.”

It is the omission of this form of “sum, esse” (I would hazard a guess at “estote” since that is what is in Luke) in this context which is bothersome.

It seems to me that in the other examples cited (with the possible exception of the English translation of “Dominus vobiscum”) the form is either obvious because the nouns decline, the context limits the form, or it is used elsewhere and carried forward.

I don’t love the ICEL “Gloria Patri,” but one easily sees that “be” as in the form usually prayed in the Rosary follows “Gloria,” and that if “erat” is the form used first in the conclusion, then the present and future form ought to be used for the other two. Of course both English and Latin have at least two acceptable forms of the future but I am partial to “ever shall be.”

How would you render Misericordes sicut pater?

I would keep it in Latin, as the official anthem has it. Why try to make it have one meaning when it has many as it is?

And, BTW, "Pater" is capitalized and refers to our heavenly Father, not just a father.

And, BTW2, I do not accept @MathewRoth's contention that the "missing verb" should probably be "estote" because that imperative is used in Luke 6:26. The anthem refrain has 3 words, while Lk 6:26 has 9: Estote ergo misericordes sicut et Pater vester misericors est.

"Missa est" seems to me not much more than "(the) Mass is (accomplished/finished/done/over)."What is it about caffeinated beverages that inspire the best music

But isn't it only called "Mass" because of that word used there?
So "Missa" wasn't a noun referring to the just-completed liturgy originally, yes?

It refers to the Mass just completed.

Either I'm not making my thoughts clear, or I don't understand the issue at all.
(WHY NOT BOTH?!)

Translating "Missa Est" as "[the] Mass is [anything at all]" assumes that "Missa" is a noun that means "the Eucharistic Liturgy".

I was under the impression that this is not the case, at least originally. Rather "Missa" acquired noun status because of this phrase, and the original meaning was:
Go, [something] is sent.

Fr. Krisman,

I grant your point that the Latin is rich in meaning and translations of it may reduce the meaning. This is, after all, the best argument against vernacular liturgies in the first place. Even if it weren't, I would grant it, because the point is valid in other (relevant) contexts.

The reason for my question is this: since Misercordes is plural, how should we who sing (with the spirit and understanding) this text? What nuance is there which is getting lost?

Chris,

Yes, "misericordes" is a plural adjective. So it would not be referring to the Father but to us, or you (plural), or them. "We/you/they are or are to be merciful like the Father" is what I hear in the refrain.