Are English (Anglican-rite) settings approved for use in Catholic liturgy?
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 118
    I usually watch snippets of Mass from the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in DC each week. It’s the Noon Mass with the choir schola. Last weekend, the choir schola did the Gloria from Darke’s Service in F. Yesterday, they sang the Gloria from Piccolo’s Canterbury Mass.

    Are these settings, which essentially use our previous translation, permitted for use?
  • CatholicZ09,

    Whatever faults Harold Darke may have had, he didn't write an English setting of the Mass ordinary using the 1970 translation.

    Now, to the other part of the question: there are three schools of thought on the appropriateness/ permission to use these. One school (represented around here by Jackson Osborn) argues that if the music is beautiful and the text is that assigned, there isn't a worthy objection to using it. A second school (represented perhaps by Francis Koerber, or Corinne Cooze, or Stimson in Rehab, or ServiamScores or me) argues something closer to 'yes, it's beautiful, but wouldn't it be better to use Latin rather than sacral English. A third school (represented robustly by Charles W) argues that if your pastor (or, in this case, the pastor at the Shrine) is okay with it, there's no concern beyond that, so YES, it is permitted.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    If in doubt, ask the pastor - especially if you happen to work for him.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 922
    Chris is right that I do love my Latin and tend towards it whenever I can, but I'm also a pragmatist who works full-time for a Novus Ordo parish. One has to pick one's battles. We have latin ordinaries during Advent and Lent (and the same ordinary for the last 3 years to make sure people really learn it well before we move on to something new). I'm careful to point out (even to the congregation) though that singing in latin isn't 'penitential'.

    That said, my take on this particular thread is that if it is approved for use within ordinariate rubrics, it seems plausible to me that it is therefore legitimate for regular roman use. One runs the risk of "mixing the rites" as they are distinct, but no one can argue that it's OK for the gloria to be sung in this church on 1st St. with an ex-anglican congregation but it's not ok for this other church on 12th St. which has always been Roman (but is in full communion with the latter, or rather, vice-versa). It simply doesn't make sense. It's either permitted for use in the liturgy or it isn't.

    The question about translation is indeed a tricky one, and ultimately that's above my paygrade, although I do believe that many of us would take the approach that ordinariate aka-"King James English" tends to be more august and beautiful than our modern quotidian translation. It sounds like that might not be the translation you're referring to, however. I don't remember anything particularly grievous in the old modern translation; what was more grievous was simply how it was set in the 70's rather than the translation itself.

    (In hind sight, it is funny to me how people were more ruffled a few years ago by the insertion of the term "consubstantial" than the awful music they were forced to sing for years.)
  • M. Jackson Osborn
    Posts: 8,017
    A priest can visit Walsingham and say our Use, ditto one of our priests going eslswhere, But the two Uses or any part of them can not be substituted for the other.

    When one of our priests celebrates elsewhere the people often ask 'how did you do that?! I sounded so different, so holy and reverent.' (It's that Anglican touch.)

  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,690
    Piccolo revised his Canterbury Mass for the (experimental) 1980 CofE Alternative Service Book. Do we know which version was sung at the National Shrine? But I don't have an ASB here, so I don't know whether that would make any difference, the CofE professes the Nicene Creed.
    The Darke Gloria uses the long-standing translation of hominibus bonae voluntatis as meaning 'goodwill towards men'
    Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men. (Lk. 2:14 KJV)
    Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. (Lk. 2:14 DRA)
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 922
    A priest can visit Walsingham and say our Use, ditto one of our priests going eslswhere, But the two Uses or any part of them can not be substituted for the other.

    Indeed; hence my remark about "mixing rites". That said, the Gloria is part of the ordinary, and thus, of both rites, so I'm not sure that dynamic strictly applies here. Where I think it would apply is in a case where, for instance, the Ambrosian rite used an Ambrosian creed rather than the Nicene creed. Substituting one for the other whilst celebrating either Roman or Ambrosian rite would be an actual mixing of the rites. But using the ordinariate translation of the gloria between two masses in the vernacular seems to me to slide into a grey zone. (Gray zone? lol.)

    If anything, I'd imagine people would be more bent out of shape about the regionally-approved translation in respective missals and whether or not they matched.
  • davido
    Posts: 503
    If we cannot insert “O” before “Lamb of God” in the NO, then there is no way to justify using the Ordinariate translations of things in the NO. We either follow our liturgical books or we don’t.
    I am imagining the justification is: Darke is pretty, so we used it, so there.
    Can’t say I disagree, but…
    Thanked by 1MarkB
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    “ there is no way to justify using the Ordinariate translations of things in the NO. We either follow our liturgical books or we don’t.”

    I don’t have a GIRM in front of me at the moment to confirm, but if it doesn’t explicitly prohibit the use of translations/ordinaries from other forms/uses of the Roman Rite into the OF, then the spirit of the law would nonetheless lead one to reasonably conclude that that practice would be illicit. I’m quite surprised the National Shrine of all places tried to pull that off.
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 2,791
    I have adapted the Gloria from Merbecke's Communion Service, from 1661 BCP to 2010 ICEL, and I know that Fr. Scott Haynes made a Latin-language version of Willan's Missa Brevis in F Minor, originally 1661 BCP, as well. Is it possible that they were using Darke or Piccolo adapted to the new translation? (1661 and 2010 aren't too different from each other.)

    I know that I would love to see a version of Rubbra's Missa Cantuariense adapted for the Nervous Ordo...especially the Creed.
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 118
    Hawkins,

    This was the setting from Piccolo’s Mass that was used:

    https://youtu.be/pRQPTPOLzj8
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 850
    It is not permitted. I cannot agree more that those translations are vastly superior to those we are stuck with, but the rubrics exist for a reason. We can't get mad at liturgical progressives for picking and choosing what they want to follow if we then turn around and do the same.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 922
    One thing that did come to me after leaving my prior comment this morning is that it is disorienting to PIPs to have translations change from one mass to the next; it’s probably not advisable to use non-standard translations if for no other reason than that.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,690
    Luke 2:14 is accepted by all modern versions to mean 'to men of good will'. KJV is set in stone/law, and the Ordinariate has been permitted to use 'good will to men'. You might take that to show CDWDS is not overly bothered.

    ServiamScores - in polyphonic works like these, the PIPs can only catch a few words so that would not impinge.
  • pfreese
    Posts: 138
    The setting of the Canterbury Mass that was sung at the National Shrine yesterday used the 1970 Roman Missal translation, with entire stanzas left out. Definitely illicit.

    Come on Dr. Latona, I expect better from you.
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 118
    So, I’m not sure how to timestamp on mobile, so for those who care to listen to hear exactly which versions were used last weekend and this past weekend:

    Sunday, June 13, Darke’s Service in F from BNSIC

    https://youtu.be/_YefyyTGI3Q

    Gloria begins at 25:00.


    Sunday, June 20, Piccolo’s Canterbury Mass from BNSIC

    https://youtu.be/S47Yn7RIpY8

    Gloria begins at 10:30.


  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 118
    I think my biggest question is: if it would be permissible to use one of the above settings used at the National Shrine, why couldn’t the average NO parish pull out the good ol’ St. Louis Jesuits Mass? I mean, really, it goes both ways…doesn’t it?

    I hope this post doesn’t come off as a harsh critique of the music at the National Shrine. I really do appreciate Dr. Latona’s work and was genuinely curious if the above settings were permitted to be used for our Masses here in the U.S or not.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 922
    ServiamScores - in polyphonic works like these, the PIPs can only catch a few words so that would not impinge.

    True prima facie, but it would still be odd to hear the choir sing one set of words one week, and then have a congregational setting with a different translation the next. Admittedly, in something this choral, it wouldn't make a huge difference.
  • To compare anything by Darke to anything by the SLJ is....unfair. It's like claiming that an algebra student and another still learning multiplication tables are fair to put in the same mathematics group.
  • MarkB
    Posts: 670
    You miss the point. The point was that if an exception is made for one musical setting of the Mass ordinary whose text is an English translation formerly approved but no longer approved for use in the new Roman Missal, then exceptions would have to be made for all such settings.

    I thought it was clear that prior translations of Mass texts and any unauthorized alterations to the approved Mass texts are prohibited.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • CatholicZ09
    Posts: 118
    Chris, what Mark said is exactly my point. While Darke is definitely in a whole different league than the beloved SLJ, really, the argument can be made that any pre-2011 Mass settings could be used if Darke were to be permitted. I just used the SLJ setting as an example because it hasn’t been revised for this edition of the Roman Missal (to my knowledge).

    Point is: just because it’s “nice” doesn’t make it right.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Catholic Z09,

    I wouldn't be in favor of using the Darke setting. I was merely pointing out that, musically speaking, Darke and SLJ aren't in the same league. I don't think any of the 1970 translation should be allowed to grace a shelf anywhere, except in advance of a book burning. Even an antique shop, as evidence of the temporary insanity of an age, might not be appropriate.

    I can't avoid the quandry posed by the Ordo Missae of Paul VI, however, which has developed by deliberate, planned acts of disobedience and horrid acts of (perhaps) well-meaning redrafting of a thing of beauty.

    Mark,

    I don't miss the point at all, although I can see how reasonable people can come to that conclusion. Precisely because the barn door has been left ajar long after the horse has escaped, I can't see an actual reason for preventing the use of the Darke (or the SLJ) an an OF Mass, and (evidently) the folks at the National Shrine don't either.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • DL
    Posts: 22
    The Divine Worship texts aren’t translations in the sense in which the English OF texts are. There is not Latin editio typica to which they can conform, or not conform. And Darke in F (we had another name for it when I was a treble) almost certainly doesn’t conform exactly to the text in Divine Worship. I suppose you could translate the DW texts into Latin, but you might end up with something different from the Missale Romanum, as one of the Victorian translations of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer into Latin did, intentionally using “praeservare” instead of “custodire” at the formula for giving communion.

    One could imagine, say, a French-language choral Mass ordinary being sung, and there I think - hope?-one would want instinctively to make sure it was the right translation.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,216
    I never used anything other than the currently approved and promulgated translation. That would now be the 2010 Third Edition of the Roman Missal.

    Yes, I know the mass might have been more beautiful, accurate, traditional, and so forth before they started shooting those new-fangled bows and arrows. That probably messed up the weather, too.

    There is little point in an official translation if folks feel free to disregard it. As far as the Shrine goes, those people have the talent and ability to adapt the music to the newer translation. What's their issue and how does it make them different than the infamous hippies who tinkered with nearly everything? We might as well use the Pirate Gloria from the Liturgical Mysteries if all things are equal. Darke was a more credible composer than many out there, but still...
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,690
    Just sayin' The translation of the ancient text of the Gloria used by Darke is
    NOT anything to do with 1970, or 1980, it is as old as the TLM,
    AND it is currently authorised for the Ordinariates, which makes its authority newer than 2011.

    OTOH GIRM§53 ,which applies equally to both OF and DW:TM in their respective texts, clearly says
    The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other.
    And on yet another hand, I dislike rigidity, prefering flexibility within clear limits.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 191
    Isn't "flexibility within clear limits" what brought us to this liturgically chaotic point in history in the first place?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,690
    No, it is disregard of the limits, and the refusal of bishops to clarify the limits (where neccessary), that caused the chaos. A due amount of flexibity gives robustness, rigidity is brittle. I would not excommunicate those who stray further back than 1962.
    Thanked by 1Andrew_Malton
  • davido
    Posts: 503
    So this means we can use Willan Missa Magdalena in the original text? YESSS!!!