Hi Gilbert:

Welcome to the forum.

(Wow. This question is more dangerous than the post on morality! (tic))

Please forgive me, Gilbert. I am still trying to figure this one out for myself. In the meantime, we all sing Gregorian chant. :) Actually, we will always be singing chant, even if we figure out how to compose new excellent music for the liturgy.

Perhaps Jeffrey will have some insight, or Dr. Ford, or other members here. I am all ears because this has been one of my greatest questions as a composer also!

Here is the policy statement from the Committee on Divine Worship of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Thank you, Jeffrey and Dr. Ford, for the vital summary and information appropriate to this matter, which also provides an excellent precursor to my own thoughts as a composer.

Gilbert,

Here is my own approach in a nutshell. After composing 'sacred music' for about 35 years and struggling with the issues that Jeffrey mentioned above, I finally came to the conclusion that I would stick almost exclusively to composing in latin for liturgical compositions. (Granted, I am composing polyphony and not the usual music of the 'active participation' genre). But here is my thinking. The text won't change, translations are a mute point, the compositions can be utilized globally (that is one of the reaons why the church decided on latin in the first place), and copyrights become a non-issue.

However, the true bedrock for me is much deeper--the theological conviction that I do not want to participate or contribute to the very things that erode our faith: false ecumenism, indifferentism, syncretism, relativism and new age religions. Ideally, I only want my music to be utilized in the Roman Catholic liturgy; no where else. The popes have warned us about these things which threaten faith, and I have chosen to use my own compositions to stand against them while at the same time composing music that is both beautiful and full of the truth that is unchanging. (see encyclicals on modernism)

Now, using latin texts do not guarantee immunity from abuse of my compositions (or the older ones for that fact), but it certainly narrows the marketability factor immensely right from the first note. I then fortify my position by utilizing texts that are specifically Catholic in nature. Mass ordinaries, eucharistic texts, Marian texts, etc., in short, music that clearly puts forth the faith without dumbing down the truth or making it widely acceptable to many beliefs and/or religions. This is because I strongly believe that music should not be composed for music's sake (sales, marketability, popularity, etc.) but for God's sake alone.

In practicality, I have even taken the steps to self-publish which means that I control my own copyrights, distribution, etc. Although self-publishing is somewhat of an extra burden to me that I would rather not have, distribution is a neccesary arm of any serious minded composer. Fortunately, I was pushed into the professional publishing realm many years ago with the advent of the Macintosh computer (and that nagging drive to eat!)

God Bless you in your efforts. I look forward to hearing your works sometime.

Ok, so let's say we want to use the Communion Proper, with psalm verses, but there's no feasible way to get translations in the pews at this point. I think psalm verses in english would be a good idea here. Also, what if you used an english translation of the text of the Proper, sorta in the place of the first psalm verse. That way, you get the beautiful Proper sung in Latin, then you listen to the english translation to a psalm tone, Proper, psalm verse, proper, etc. Would something like this be allowed?

Jules,

According to the document cited by Mr. Ford:

"Only those musical settings of liturgical texts from the Order of Mass Which have received the approval described in this paragraph may be used in the liturgy in the United States of America."

It seems like they are saying that a Catholic does not have the right to sing, for example, a "Lamb of God" melody that a local composer writes.

I find this disturbing. At the local monastery where I sometimes attend daily Mass, one of the brothers (who has a Master's in composition) wrote a simple version of the "Lamb of God." Their community, and all present, sing this version. Are they breaking the rules???

Can that be right?"

This is an interesting point, Jules.

There was control over the music that was played and sung in the church until Vatican II. That control was lifted temporarily. And is still lifted, but may soon go back into effect...to the betterment of all.

It may have permitted a whole lot of abuses...and bad music...that we put up with today. There was never any real control of local parishes as far as new music...or often even over the music that they did. The control existed to support a priest...or a musician dealign with a priest or bride who chose to ignore good taste...and appropriateness.

While this mainly would seem to apply to text alone, it also applies to music, as rather severe wording was used concerning the popular weddings marches...

The last I read, this control was being considered and put in the hands of local bishops....I am sure someone might be able to give clearer info about this.

noel at sjnmusic.com

For Gilbert and others interested in English-language settings of the Gregorian proper texts, there are a few resources.

WLP publishes some assorted communions by Charles Thatcher for Advent/Christmas and Lent/Easter. They are not all of the propers for these seasons, but they can be used seasonally.

They also publish the Christoph Tietze “Introit Hymns for the Church Year”. It’s a nice collection, other than some shady commentary in the preface and use of some odd-ball hymn tunes that don’t get much play in parishes; the point of the collection is to use tunes that already are well-known.

Morningstar in St. Louis publishes two collections by James Biery of communion antiphons for Advent and Lent (respectively). These are both nice collections, though some of the antiphons are a bit long, IMO, for a congregation to pick them up easily.

I believe the major publishers don’t (yet?) offer many comprehensive resource for English-language proper text settings because of the large financial risk involved. There are over 110 communions, for example, in just the Sunday cycle. I think most parishes are still using “Shepherd Me, O God” as a responsorial psalm; asking these parishes to invest in a collection of entirely new music for each Sunday of the year, even though the refrains would be short and learnable, is a tall order, especially since that music currently couldn’t be given in any format other than a congregational worship aid, which I think few places actually use.

And, as Jeffrey notes, the vernacular psalm texts are copyrighted, so that brings additional financial burden on the publishers.

The BCL document takes the Appendix to the 1975 GIRM §19:

No official approbation is needed for new melodies for the Lord’s Prayer at Mass or for the chants, acclamations (sic) and other songs of the congregation.

....and takes that to mean the following:

No official approbation is required for hymns, songs, and acclamations written for the
assembly, provided they are not sung settings of the liturgical texts of the Order of Mass.

GIRMapp seems to be saying that melodies for (Lord’s Prayer, chants, acclamations, etc.) require no approval, particularly if we look at it in context of the preceding paragraph, which discusses settings of the presidential and ministerial chants. In other words, this part of GIRMapp seems to envision new music for pre-existing texts, not for new texts.

The BCL seems, though, to read GIRMapp as giving blanket permission for any new texts.

Dr. Ford would know, but I wonder if the current U.S. GIRM, which (AFAIK?) doesn’t contain the “require no approval” line, or Liturgiam Authenticam, which seems to envision a more rigid/regulated system than we have in America, override this BCL document.

I go back and forth on whether I think that rigidity, that every text sung in the Mass would require explicit approval, would be a good thing. There are definitely texts that I think would be best not sung at Mass, but for example, Farrant “Lord, For Thy Tender Mercy’s Sake” might not make it through all the bureaucratic red tape required to get the approval Liturgiam Authenticam envisions. And of course, there are things like the RCIA rites, many of which have no assigned Gregorian melodies or even suggested texts, so we have to create our own texts there.

I would think the psalters in use in the Roman Breviary (Grail 1963) and in the Anglican Use’s Book of Divine Worship (Coverdale, ???) would get an easy pass-through.

In general, I think regulations of liturgical music would benefit greatly from completely separating texts from musical settings thereof.

Yes, simply put, you can keep trying the new horses that newchurch keeps installing from now until kingdom come. At some point one must finally realize that the only way to stop them from creating new horses is to just get off the merry-go-round and stay off altogether.

Hmm.. just saw someone else use the term "newchurch" so I guess it is gaining some circulation beyond the Traditio folk. Francis, you're OK!!

I thought as much. We should be careful not to adopt the terminology used by the poor misguided souls at Traditio though. It's heartbreaking to read some of that stuff over there.