The St. Cecilia Missal project
  • This is an impressive project. It is a private translation of the Mass set to Gregorian tones.

    The authors is Jonathan Lee
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    It certainly is impressive, though I'm confused as to its usefulness seeing as how it is not an approved translation. Is it intended for use in a non-Catholic communion?
  • Surely not. I think it is just a translation. Actually, I'm not surely sure! In any case, it is impressive.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,933
    The text seems to be based on the latest Missal revision, including the recently added dismissal alternatives (Go in peace/ Go forth to proclaim the Gospel, etc.)

    The Vidi Aquam and Asperges adaptations he prepared could probably be used today.
  • Dan F.Dan F.
    Posts: 205
    I thought that might be it too, but don't have those new translations to check. Aren't we still waiting for permissions, blahbitty-blah-blah, to use it?
  • Priestboi
    Posts: 154
    Hi all!

    My name is Jonathan Lee Ching, I'm the guy that set the Missal text.

    This is the text of the 'whitebook' provided by the US Bishops conference. In South Africa we have moved over to the new translation of the ordinary with the previous translation of the propers. Unfortunately some changes have been overridden by the Bishops Conference of SA, but I have decided to remain faithful to the 'Whitebook' (which,BTW has received regognisio, as you know) until the dust settles.

    Here is the link:
    http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf

    This is what I sent Mr Tucker

    'Dear Mr Tucker,

    please find attached an attempt of the ordinary of the updated translation of the Novus Ordo, set to the tones of the Mass. I do not pretend to be proficient in the Gregorian style, but I'd thought I'd have a go at it and get as much input from sacred musicians and priests as possible. There are some notable problems especially with the setting of the Vidi Aquam and Asperges me and probably some other things. Inspiration comes from the Tones as in the Liber, the Novus Ordo Sacramentary (hence the setting of the EP prayers - unorthodox perhaps), the 'Jubilate', Priory Press and the Anglican Use Gradual.

    I find that with the recent upheaval with the release of the Motu, those who are able to bring beauty to the Normative Mass have set off on focusing all their energies on the Gregorian Rite alone, where I am anyway.

    I study music at the University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa and hope one day to enter into scared music full time; and God willing and if my parents allow, I would like to attend some workshops with the Institute.

    Please correct, guide and give as much input as you are able

    Thank you so much!
    Jonathan Lee Ching'

    In the same breathe, I ask as many as possible to correct, guide and give as much input, so that the missal may be improved on.

    The main idea is to notate all sung parts for the English service and have one fully notated book per season, rather than is our case, where the priests have to work from three or four resources, usually trite and out of touch with any form of tradition; and sometimes gladly changing texts as the option still stands for something 'suitable'.

    I hope that everyone here continues the great work of ensuring the worship of our Saviour is the best we can offer!
    Peace!
    Jonathan
  • dear Jonathan... what a wonderful thing you are doing!

    Beautiful work... thank you so much for sharing with us!

    Janet.
  • Ok, I'm so sorry. I'm an idiot. Of course it is the new translation. Why can't I learn to read things more carefully? Oh well, clarity at last. I'm sorry Jonathan!
  • Priestboi
    Posts: 154
    Haha! its Ok. I was slightly confused at first...lol! Hope this work helps someone out there!
  • Impressive indeed, obviously a labor of love.

    Most of the chants are syllabic, as one would expect. The Asperges/Vidi aquam chants seem to be among the few that are more elaborate. For the Asperges/Vidi aquam, I had the same difficulty as janetgorbitz--following which neumes correspond to which syllables. The Solesmes typesetting convention is to begin the neumes of each syllable over the syllable's vowel. Sometimes this involves spacing syllables out a little more than one might expect, especially for the more melismatic syllables. Of course, this comment is based on the PDF--sometimes things shift a little in conversion to PDF.

    A couple of other comments. For one initial syllables of one letter (example: I saw water), there should be a way to show which neume(s) go with the large red capital. In my 1961 Graduale, a dash holds the place of the large initial capital (Example: the Ascension Offertory: A-- scendit De-us). At the very end, for the alternate "mysterium fidei" responses, it might be better to use the same position of the Do clef for the priest's intro and the response.
  • glad to post a new version when available.
  • Well, I had to take it down



    Dear Mr. Tucker,

    On 27 August 2008, I wrote you a letter (see below) asking that you not include settings of the new Order of Mass texts on the music sacra site. Recently it has been brought to my attention that the "Missal of St. Cecilia" containing the new texts was included on the site. Again I kindly ask that these texts be removed from the site until the new Order of Mass texts have been promulgated by the Conferences of Bishops.

    I appreciate your kind attention in this matter.

    Yours sincerely,
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    This is in opposition to what the Vatican has said.

    The Vatican wants musicians to start setting the New texts NOW.

    Musicasacra will have a really hard choice to make: whether to follow the Vatican or ICEL.
  • Yes. I believe the time has come for some one, or some organization a lay Catholics, to appeal to Rome to get this cleared up. This is astoundingly inappropriate for members of the Body of Christ to be acting this way! (Unless, of course, ICEL and associated publishing companies consider themselves outside that Body, in which case, why should we give them any heed whatsoever?)
  • In correspondence, ICEL said we should share materials via email only. I wrote as follows:

    There are 600 members of the forum on which it is posted. There is simply no way to know in advance who in particular would have the best comments, and no way outside of public forums for the commentators to learn from each other and from people internationally that they do not know. It is merely a matter of coming together as a community to disseminate and advance liturgical materials.

    The person who put together the Missal is from South Africa. Already he was receiving helpful comments from people he had otherwise not known from all over the world.

    Musicians working for the Church cannot work in isolation and get the best product. Good materials don't just spring forth as if from the Brow of Zeus. These things require time for sharing and comment and comments on comments. That's the way these things work. Everyone wants the best product possible--in the service of the Church--and this is one way to obtain it.

    The policy that is preventing this is injurious to this process.

    Again, we have nonetheless complied. But I urge ICEL to rethink this policy in light of the possibilities of the digital age.
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Jeffrey - Thank you for taking it down so promptly.

    I doubt that there is anybody here who can state categorically that there will be no changes prior to dissemination by the USCCB. The Pope has asked that the "kiss of peace" be moved to precede the Offertory. There is an attempt under way to reinstate "Christ has died..." following the consecration. There may well be others less publicized.

    What we see here is NOT an attempt to interfere in musicians' right -- and obligation -- to prepare musical settings. We see a request that these works not be published in any way until everything is finalized. To do otherwise will only lead to confusion in the future as to which setting is the authoritative and correct one. Even today as we sing "Jesus, Lamb of God..." and find "peccata" translated as "sin" or "sins" depending on the whims of the composer there arise petty arguments over validity.

    I don't dispute the idea that some authoritative directive from Rome holds the possibility for clarifying the situation, and perhaps it should be pursued. But I can also understand why the often reviled copyright has to be put in place, so that corporal legal measures can be taken when the requests of the Church are ignored.
  • And yet, ICEL is encouraging musicians to get to work sharing materials and setting via private emails -- such as GIA and OCP are doing now. What is at issue here is not the need for finalized texts but the method used to share ideas.

    Why, I leave you to speculate.
  • WJA
    Posts: 237
    If the concern is preventing publication, i.e., worldwide dissemination of the not-yet-approved-texts, perhaps a closed, invitation-only forum would be acceptable.

    WJA
  • Ok, if you need a copy, write me

    sacredmusic@musicasacra.com

    If you have comments, post them here.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I fail to see the difference between these people and Johann Tetzel.

    "Unless a coin in ICEL's coffer rings,
    the congregation is not allowed to sing."

    Also, the term "simony" comes to mind, somehow...
  • LOL

    See Faith in a Hard Ground: Essay on Religion etc., by G.E.M Anscombe (Imprint Academic 2008), pp. 239-257, the chapter on "Simony in Africa." She discusses the difference between charging for special intention and charging for general services of the faith.
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    WJA - I think you have an excellent idea. Companies exchange information about future developments under Non-Disclosure Agreements on a regular basis. Perhaps the serious Catholic composers should do the same. Set up a private network where they can exchange ideas. And agree to keep in under wraps until such time as the authorities decide it should be made public.

    Of course some people on both sides will likely cry foul, but that's often the surest way to confirm that it is fair.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    "And agree to keep in under wraps until such time as the authorities decide it should be made public. "

    ?????

    It already IS public. It is viewable on the USCCB website.

    Anyone can go there and download it, view it, copy it, etc.

    This is lunacy. The Vatican has ordered us to study this new text and write music for it and ICEL is defying the Vatican.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    already IS public. It is viewable on the USCCB website.
    Anyone can go there and download it, view it, copy it, etc.

    This seems to be a common sense even to those who are not techincally oriented. Study the music and view them and improve, what's worng with that? (especially among musicians who care about the sacred music, not just among the 'currently' composers.) We are not even having the congregation sing it.
  • Well, ICEL sure knows how to keep a guy busy. I've sent out some 75 now. On the other hand, our friend's little Missal is getting more attention than it might otherwise have.
  • If this is the approved text for South Africa and South Africa is permitting the publication this music with this text without any sanction, ICEL has no right nor power to block us from viewing it, sharing and, in the privacy of our own homes EVEN SINGING IT.

    Jonathan Lee Ching's work cannot and should not be supressed.

    FREE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHANT! FREE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHANT! OD YOU HEAR US ICEL? WE DO NOT LIKE YOUR POLICY OF SUPPRESSION AND IT IS TIME FOR IT TO END. FREE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHANT.

    I need a drink of water after that.
  • Don't forget that we have dozens of chants ready to release that are similarly being held back by ICEL
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Jeff - I don't believe the translation is intended to be held back, since the USCCB does post the words. Reading the letter Jeffrey Tucker received it is the settings that he has been asked to withdraw. There is nothing at all to stop your composing. It is the public posting of those setting that are at issue.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,933
    Would it be all right for the author himself to publish settings on his own web site? After all, the text has been promulgated in his country. And if there isn't a Church Music Association of South Africa yet to do the job, there should be.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    "Reading the letter Jeffrey Tucker received it is the settings that he has been asked to withdraw. There is nothing at all to stop your composing. It is the public posting of those setting that are at issue."

    OK....why? It doesn't make any sense and there is no possible justification for it. As a matter of fact, it flies in the face of what the Vatican has asked.

    Who is ICEL to tell me I can't do whatever I want with my own music??

    There is no reason or justification for what they are doing. They might was well tell me I can't drive a pink car if I want to. They have as much right to do that.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "Who is ICEL to tell me I can't do whatever I want with my own music??"

    The copyright holder of the texts you're setting. I'm not saying it's fair, in fact I think it's a sign of serious corruption, but they do have a right to tell you what you can and can't do with their text.

    Of course, if you think they DON'T have that right, then go ahead and ignore them. I'll back you on that.
  • Yeah, Gavin is right. ICEL is using the state's laws to do this. They only apply in this country. And to ICEL's credit, they are liberalizing slightly: letting us send via email, and promising to let us distribute via web after conf. approval. The absurdity of course is that the SAME texts are currently being distributed on sites in other Eng-speaking countries. It's all a silly dance done at the behest of mega-publishers (my own reading of the situation).

    Hello GIA!
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    sorry to ask this, do GIA and those give lots money to ICEL? I'm just asking. Maybe it's illegal to answer it.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,933
    ICEL gets most of its money from royalty payments, so GIA probably has to pay them when they print ICEL Mass texts in hymnals and booklets.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I also heard GIA guys give good amount of donations to churches, and the churches buy their hymnals. So maybe ICEL is trying to help the flow of the money by protecting GIA and GIA composers. They can sell better if they keep them secret until it's time. GIA will be dominating the market again with new mass settings. (well, maybe I misunderstood their good intentions. who knows?)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,933
    Just to be cautious, can you rephrase that? "I also heard..." sounds like an unsubstantiated rumor. If it is, it might not really be suitable to post it on this forum.
  • urli
    Posts: 35
    If it's not illegal to host it somewhere outside the USA, I'll happily host it at a Dutch website.
  • GIA and OCP both offer Grants to churches. And who pays ICEL? Who funds ICEL? It's not a secret, it's all right here:

    http://www.icelweb.org/publishers.htm
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    "Who is ICEL to tell me I can't do whatever I want with my own music??"
    The copyright holder of the texts you're setting. I'm not saying it's fair, in fact I think it's a sign of serious corruption, but they do have a right to tell you what you can and can't do with their text.
    Of course, if you think they DON'T have that right, then go ahead and ignore them. I'll back you on that.


    I think not!

    Leaving aside the issue of what the Church has asked and demanded (which they should obey), I believe that legally they have to afford the same rights to everyone.

    For instance, they can't say to my wife, who is Filipino, "You can't post these online because you are a Filipino, and we don't like Filipino's." They can't do that.

    The texts are already available online. Anyone can go online RIGHT NOW and copy and paste them, download them, etc.

    What is unfair is that they're saying, "Certain people CAN post them, and certain people CANNOT post them."

    That is unjust.
  • The U.S. has one member on the ICEL committee: The Most Revd Arthur Serratelli, Bishop of Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,933
    Jeff, can you go further into this?

    Which "certain people" are permitted, and which are not?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I'm very glad someone warned me about my post. I was expecting it and hoping it. (Thanks Chonak, you are absolutely right about posting a rumor.) But before I posted what I said, I gave thoughts on this. And I decided to post it, even without the evidence. (thanks Noel for the link.) I really needed to hear about it from others. (if it was just a rumor, someone will say we don''t have to worry about it, and I just need to apologize for being ignorant.)

    I want to ask another question here. What the ICEL people really worry about posting the music? Are they worry about people being confused with new music and new texts before it is finalized? People are already used to all the confusions. In my opinion, keeping them until last minute and not permitting to post music of the composers who wish to do so, don't help anything. I think they should be more open about the music as they are open to the new texts. Why do they bother to post the text to the public then. They should have given only to the registered catholic musicians or something.
  • Frogman: Taking the question to its logical conclusion: who pays GIA et al.? Who funds OCP, etc.?...
  • An interesting list which is tiny by comparison to those who would be publishing Catholic liturgical materials in absence of state-granted monopoly privileges, and the list interestingly excludes some who use ICEL texts and do commercially publish, such as Solesmes and Magnificat. There seems to be some slippage here.

    Again, we need to ask the question why anyone should have to pay a private monopolist to print the mandated and authorized text of the liturgy of the Church. That is a more fundamental question than the one above but it is a serious one. As you know, the PBC does not use the ICEL text simply because we couldn't afford it (though in retrospect it was wise not to print it).
  • Is there any way that we can petition Rome to sort out of this mess? I would dearly love for Rome to tell ICEL that everything has to be issued under the creative commons licence. Where would we send correspondence? The Congregation for Divine Worshop and the Sacraments? Vox Clara?

    Does anybody out there know a decent canonist? Does the system of restrictions in place at present in any way restrict the rights of Catholics as outlined in Canon Law? Maybe that would be an angle worth pursuing.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I really shouldn't or cannot accuse ICEL for anything I really don''t know. But the reason of my speculation above is for us to think ways to stop that our churches get bombarded with with Haas and Haugen style of profane music again, and our cogregation is forced to sing them whether they want them or not, and also this doesn't become a business opportunity for GIA and those to sell more hymnals. They are in business, their goals are pretty different from people here. It seems that those who want to post their music with new texts seem to have more genuine goal of promoting sacred music and share them and improve them, than those who keep them secret until the last minute. Our Church want to change the texts, besides being close to latin only, I feel that she wants to do away with those profane music. And the Church hopes that the musicians who really care about the liturgy will have a genuine opportunily to bring out sacred music. This can be done only with support of ICEL and thsoe people who are in authority. I truly believe that this thread is more on helping those sacred music composers and bringing better music for our churches in US, not so much on accusing faults of others.
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Jeffrey writes:

    As you know, the PBC does not use the ICEL text simply because we couldn't afford it (though in retrospect it was wise not to print it).

    Okay - then let's stop talking in generalities. How much was ICEL going to charge for the use of their copyrighted materials in the PBC?
  • Oh I don't recall for sure. But it is not just the cost. It is the cost of keeping up with the cost. We are all volunteers.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    chonak,

    the ENTIRE Mass is currently available online ... anyone can go online, donwload it, copy it, memorize it, see it, paste it .... we have been ordered by the Vatican to study it .... the idea that it is a crime to use and share the VERY texts that are posted online for all to see is lunacy.

    These people are truly obsessed with keeping the texts of Holy Mother Church "hidden" from the faithful, and I congratulate them for their diligence.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,933
    Right; so it seems that ICEL is telling the US bishops they may post it on-line, but you lot are not to do anything further with it.

    Is that the criterion they're applying? Or are they permitting lay people in certain countries to share the texts, but not in the US? It is lunacy.

    By the way, I've sent a note to a canonist friend for any angle he can offer.
  • So who do we write to in Rome to sort this out? I'm thinking CDW... We can't just complain about the current system (although we do need to show what we believe to be its flaws) but have to propose an alternative model. Having a few bishops (and cardinals, if we're lucky enough) on side and supporting us can't do this cause any harm, so maybe that's something to consider too. Let me be very clear: I loathe politics. But it seems to me that there seem to be so few options left for how to deal with this, and ultimately, when things get unpleasant, difficult or otherwise unworkable, it's time to appeal to that umpire of the ages - Rome!