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.

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.)

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)

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…

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

Isn't "flexibility within clear limits" what brought us to this liturgically chaotic point in history in the first place?

So this means we can use Willan Missa Magdalena in the original text? YESSS!!!