Anglican Use Gradual vs. By Flowing Waters
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Let's say your parish either has a music program in complete moribund disarray or has no program at all. You have been invited to start from scratch and move the parish gradually toward the ideal, as stated by Vatican II, of giving Gregorian chant "pride of place in liturgical services" (SC 116) along with sacred polyphony.

    Parishioners speak English. Of them, 20% are eager to hear more chant, 20% are implacably hostile to it, and 40% don't care as long as you sing reasonably well and mostly in English. There are two resources (online and free) to consider: an English rendering of the Graduale Simplex called By Flowing Waters, and a book (approved for use by former Anglicans now fully in communion with Rome) called the Anglican Use Gradual.

    Both appear to have advantages and disadvantages. Which would you choose, and why?
  • We've used the Anglican Use in two parishes for two weeks and it is a smashing success! Far beyond anything I expected.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    I'm leaning in that direction too, Jeffrey, but just for Introit and Offertory. Maybe the Communion also, for which I'd point English verses myself.

    My reason: starting with festal psalm tones (as the AUG does) would be more appropriate to the festal nature of Mass, on average, than the leaner, more humble Office hymn melodies that the Simplex/BFW uses.

    What are you using the AUG for? Just the Introit?
  • We are using it for Introit and Offertory. the beauty of the Offertory is that it establishes this point in the liturgy as a real PART of the liturgy, not just the popcorn break. This has been a great thing. It only takes 20 secs or so and has an excellent effect.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    BFW, hands down. The antiphons are interesting and easy to sing. Also it leaves the option open, if one wishes, for congregational participation. The AUG is frankly boring. I considered using it until I noticed that every Sunday had the exact same tones for the different parts of the Mass. How long do you want to hear tone VII at the Introit and I at Communion? I don't get the enthusiasm for what is essentially the Rossini propers in English. I attended an Anglo-Catholic (continuing) church once and they had those propers. It didn't add anything, it was just bland, dull, and slow. I'd only use it if I were at a protestant church which wanted propers but had no experience with them or chant. BFW, on the other hand, is more like "authentic" chant since it has melodies like the real propers. And I find it more "Catholic" - that is the music isn't just there to get the perfunctory recitation of the propers out of the way but for its own sake as a part of the Mass.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    But what if passing the collection plate takes 21 seconds, or longer? Alas, the AUG provides no verses.

    I agree: usually the Offertory means "this is the time for the choir to sing for us whatever they've been practicing, so behave yourselves and listen politely." And then the Mass resumes. (!)

    If many things were chanted, then the Mass would be this continuously prayed/sung thing. Which brings up the Our Father, which, because everyone now feels obliged to join hands and suddenly feel prayerful, feels like "the part of Mass where we pray." As if the rest isn't prayed, but is more like a collection of bits and pieces.

    In a real sense, both of these books move us closer to praying the Mass with music. That's a whole lot better than what happens now.
  • Right, it's quick, and then a motet or chant follows. It works. and it establishes that the Offertory is a real thing, not an intermission.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 335
    The (pseudo?) Elizabethan English of the Anglican gradual makes it a no go for me--I realize that some would consider this a benefit, but to me it would just be out of place next to the ICEL English, much more foreign to the average Catholic parish than Latin.

    BFW is not perfect, but it's a good start. Some selections, for example the version of the Graduale Simplex's Ego Sum Panis ad libitum communion antiphon, work very nicely
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Gavin, I agree it's not the most vivid music, but it needn't be. The job is acculturation to a new approach. I don't imagine putting either book in the pew. What I think is that it's probably better to sing a festal psalm tone consistently than a very simple antiphon that changes each time. Part of what be attractive initially is this stable tone, and one can do worse than VII. That said, I might point some differently.

    Robert, the English is quite different, isn't it. The Introit for Ash Wednesday reads: Thou has mercy on all things, O Lord, [fine so far] and hatest [uh oh] nothing that thou has created: and winkest [now wait just a minute!] at men's iniquities, because should amend, and sparest, etc.

    There are degrees of estrangement here. We ICELanders have no trouble with "hallowed be Thy name," but "winkest"? Thou protesteth not enougheth.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Robert, the English is quite different, isn't it. The Introit for Ash Wednesday reads: Thou has mercy on all things, O Lord, [fine so far] and hatest [uh oh] nothing that thou has created: and winkest [now wait just a minute!] at men's iniquities, because should amend, and sparest, etc.

    There are degrees of estrangement here. We ICELanders have no trouble with "hallowed be Thy name," but "winkest"? Thou protesteth not enougheth.
  • I haven't seen the Anglican Use resource, but for Advent, as an experiment, the adult choir is singing the communion antiphon and psalm verses from BFW between the time the priest communes and all of the EME's receive (upwards of 17 at that Mass) and move to their stations for distribution. At that point the communion procession "song" (man, do I HATE that word!) is announced and sung. If it continues to be well-received, I'll expand it to all the Masses (in some cases necessitating dragging the cantors kicking and screaming into compliance, as their favorite sport is to complain that some of the music is "too hard.")

    (Gavin: per our conversations- yes, there are times when my pastor is VERY supportive. Perhaps there's hope for my future at this parish).

    My experience has been that Anglican Use texts flow much better, and possess a greater elegance than the clumsy stuff foisted on us by ICEL, and lend themselves to better musical settings. (At the risk of showing my ignorance, I'm not sure who was responsible for the Grail translation of the psalter, The Ladies of the Grail or ICEL. Either way, it is a passible translation, but still lacks so much of the potent imagery of the KJV).

    As for the use of "Elizabethan" English vs. ICEL, I had an interesting conversation with one of our deacons yesterday; a deacon who stands in firm agreement with Bp. Trautman that we need to use language that the people "understand," thus buying into the "dumb as a bag of hair" theory that many elitests have regarding the average person in the pew. I'll set aside the argument that a cognitive pedegogical experience isn't the point of liturgy for now. The point is, we hosted a service of nine lessons and carols (a la King's College) yesterday, using the King James' translation for the readings, and the traditional texts for the officiant's prayers. This same deacon was invited to do one of the readings, and while reviewing his reading as well as some of the other texts, he said, "The imagery of these prayers and the readings is really striking! I think it's important that we have striking imagery EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE to help us better understand our faith."

    Every once in a while? OK, so the rest of the time prayer language so lacking in any kind of imagery is OK? It concerns me that that deacon, who while not a dim bulb by any stretch, doesn't get that the mere exposure to feeble texts lacking in depth has the opposite effect - weakening our understanding of the faith.

    Oh, and BTW, for those of you who are sticklers for "approved texts", the translations found in BFW haven't been approved for liturgical use, as they come from a now outdated translation of scripture previously used for Mass. (At least, when I told a colleague of mine I was going to introduce it, he remarked that the texts weren't approved. If anyone knows differently, I'd welcome the correction)>

    Not sure if that helps with the AUG vs. BFW conversation, but there you have it.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    david

    The United States Conference of Bishops Secretariat for the Liturgy DID approve BFW and its sung use of the NRSV on July 2, 2003. Msgr. James Moroney (Executive Director) wrote: "BFW ... although not an official liturgical book, is approved for publication by the USCCB Committee on the Liturgy. The chants are translated from the Graduale Simplex and may be used as sung settings of the Responsorial Psalm, Entrance, and Communion chants."

    It's very odd policy language. Does the last sentence mean that its Introits, for example, cannot be used? And what does "not an official liturgical book" mean? And it says that the book is approved "for publication" -- but does that mean that it is approved for liturgical use in its entirety? And so on.
  • gregpgregp
    Posts: 632
    For several months we've been doing, at Communion, exactly what david described (using the ad lib antiphons from BFW), and I can't say that anyone has caught fire from them. I think I will try the AUG next week just to see what the reaction will be from the choir and the congregation.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I'm bothered by the language of the AUG also. Hymns are one thing, but chanted texts, since they ARE part of the Mass, can sound rather jarring if they are in another type of language. It's like my Anglo-Catholic visiting when I hear a whole 1928 BCP service... and then a sermon or announcements in street language. Now I'm not saying we should ideally be using the ICEL translations of the propers, which are beyond bad, but maybe something closer to the Vox Clara style of language. Accurate and intelligent but not too "high", if that makes sense. And yes, the Lord's Prayer bugs me... half of it being in KJV language, then the rest in ICEL street language. I don't have a problem with a Latin/English mix, since those are of course different languages altogether.

    I'll temper my comments to say that my rant is directed against normative practice. I'll stand by my comments that I find it abominable for the AUG to be used entirely and exclusively week after week, year after year. BFW is much more suited to continual, normative use (although I'd argue that a choir accustomed to it could tackle a Gradual proper each month). So if you want to get a well-trained cantor used to propers, the AUG is the way to go. If you have been having your congregation sing the propers recto tono or in easy tones, AUG is a good way to introduce some difficult tones. If you want a really austere Lent, use AUG each week until Easter. But whatever you do, don't use it on a consistent basis.

    I understand the argument of using AUG to get people used to the model of sacred music, but I think BFW accomplishes that much better since the psalm and antiphon are so clearly distinguished from each other. It turns it from "here is the Introit text. We have the introit text, which makes us better than a church with a thousand organs and choirs singing Holy God We Praise Thy Name," to "here is this music. It is an antiphon, which is the proper model of music for the actions here."
  • Paul Ford, the author of BFW, explains the issue about the text used in his book here (last two comments on the thread):

    "So although the NRSV may not be PROCLAIMED at the Eucharist in the US still, this does not mean that it may not be SUNG, a permission that has existed as particular law for the US since Rome confirmed it on December 17, 1968. The NRSV continues to enjoy the imprimatur; and I have agreed with the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops in advance of the completion of their negotiations on Roman-required changes in the translation to incorporate all the changes in the next edition and make them immediately available on the By Flowing Waters website and my website:"

    http://www.cantemusdomino.net/2004/06/07/a-contrarian-review-of-by-flowing-waters/

    Sam Schmitt
  • Just so we are clear on trans of Propers, there is no approved English translations for sung propers. So it is just a matter of discretion.
  • My thanks to all who have helped clarify the issue of approved vs. unapproved texts. While I haven't personally had any problem using BFW (and I'm glad to hear that others are doing the same kind of thing I'm trying), it was an issue raised by a colleague of mine who tends to be perhaps a bit more scrupulous about these things than I.

    As for the language of the "permission" for use from the USCCB not making reference to the introits, I can only imagine some of them asking, "who sings those anymore. . .what's an intro-it?"
  • Using simplified English translations of the propers wouldn't be ideal anyway, so use on a consistent basis would hopefully not be an issue. However, it seems to me that repetition of a melody week after week is not necessarily a bad thing. It can allow more concentration on the words, so long as the singing isn't dronging the same way every single week. Variability in the intensity, speed, and dynamics of the singing based around the texts can result in quite powerful changes.
  • I'm curious to know why there has not been much done to set english texts to the actual gregorian melodies, with some alterations to fit the english to them more easily. I think more work in this directions would be more helpful than having to keep using two sources that I also do agree could get really boring for a congregation as well as for the musicians. I would think that a more elaborate chant done well in english would interest more people in the pews and attract them by its beauty. Although i understand the use of the AUG or BFW for at least some things if you have a choir that is just beginning. I've actually already worked on setting some of the Christmas chants to english text based on the Gregorian missal and like it as an option far better than the two being discussed here. for example, i think so much is lacking to use the introit for the xmas day mass from the AUG rather than the actual gregorian melody which imitates the triumphant sound of a trumpet call. I am planning to ask my home pastor if i could try to do some of them for the Christmas mass, although it might be a bit much to introduce to the parish just yet. it's worth a shot though. I agree that working towards the chants with their latin texts is the goal, but i also think that we can musically do better than the AUG or BFW. (As a side note, i have a copy of BFW and am still confused about how to use it.)
    So pray for my endeavor to try to set english to some of the chant melodies (with some alterations). i also plan to try to compose some alleluias based on the triple alleluias from the graduale simplex, since the chabanel psalm project has not addressed this yet.
  • Kimberly,

    You may be interested in what Fr. Samuel Weber is doing:

    http://www.adoremus.org/1205MusicalOffering.html

    Sam Schmitt
  • Fr. Samuel is doing great work. There's also The American Gradual (see link below), aimed at Episcopal parishes but with adaptations for Roman Catholic use. It's modern English with modern-notation renderings of the traditional chant melodies, and I'd say the editors have been quite sensitive to making the chants work with English, altering the chant where necessary. The Anglo-Catholic world has also had for many years The Plainchant Gradual published by St Mary's Convent, Wantage, Oxfordshire, but quite hard to find now except through used-book channels. It uses the older English of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and has the traditional Gregorian melodies in square notation.

    http://www.sjmp.com/catalog/gradual.htm
  • I did know about Fr. Weber's work, but I also knew that it still is not available to purchase anywhere. As far as the American Gradual goes, i had been thinking that the Anglican Use gradual was that book. the titles are similar, and so i didn't realize there were two books of english chants out there. I did have the American gradual mentioned to me by Fr. Skeris. One thing i am not fond of though about both the American Gradual and Fr. Weber's work is their use of modern notation rather than chant notation. I know a lot of people don't know how to read chant notation, but say you start in your parish with doing some of the chants in english, by using these resources you still are not preparing the choir to know how to read the gregorian chant for the latin versions! How is anyone in the choir going to learn to read chant unless we start teaching them, including with english propers in chant notation? For that reason, i might lean toward a use of the Anglican gradual at times, also because i don't have $99 to spare at the moment and neither would my home parish.
  • Thank you, Pes, for your December 10th answer to david’s concern about the legality of By Flowing Waters.

    I have attached the letter of permission to this post.

    Pes raises these concerns which I want to address: ”It's very odd policy language. Does the last sentence mean that its Introits, for example, cannot be used? And what does ‘not an official liturgical book’ mean? And it says that the book is approved ‘for publication’ -- but does that mean that it is approved for liturgical use in its entirety? And so on.”

    The Entrance chants of By Flowing Waters ARE the Introits of the Graduale Simplex. By Flowing Waters IS approved for liturgical use in its entirety.

    The odd policy language was the result of seven year struggle to get the BCL to allow the publication of ICEL’s official translation of the Latin antiphons of the Graduale Simplex.

    The issue was BFW’s use of the NRSV psalms and canticles, a use undertaken at the direction of Oregon Catholic Press, the original publisher of BFW. OCP asked me to use the NRSV because it had been approved for liturgical use by Rome until 1994, when the USCCB asked the permission withdrawn in favor of the translation it owned: the RNAB.

    This move prompted Rome to take a closer look at both translations and Rome demanded that both be brought into line with the translation guidelines which were taking shape as Liturgiam Authenticam. (Rome has re-approved the NRSV for Canada; see the story attached to this post.)

    So BFW was caught in the lectionary debate.

    After I had petitioned the BCL six times, they relented and allowed this “permission” to be printed on the copyright page: By Flowing Waters: Chant for the Liturgy is in no sense an official liturgical book. It is designed as a collection of chants, chiefly from biblical and liturgical sources, for use during the liturgy when alternatives to official liturgical texts may be chosen.”

    When the lectionary debate died down, I asked for clearer, less reluctant language for the second edition. Hence the letter of July 2, 2003.

    I want it clear that I prepared BFW scrupulously canonically in hopes that someday it might be an official English version of the Graduale Simplex. But it needs to be used and tested first; and of course I will revise it when the new translations of the order of the Mass are approved. I would also like to publish a square-note edition. But I had all I could do when I spent eighteen months engraving the current edition.

    I hope this response addresses the concerns raised.
  • In answer to Kimberly's question about setting English texts to the actual Gregorian melodies, perhaps we all need to be aware that the antiphons of the Order of Mass were never intended to be sung, but are provided without notation to be recited whenever the Graduale Romanum or another song is not sung. The antiphons of the Missale Romanum, which sometimes differ substantially from the sung antiphons of the Roman Gradual, were never intended to be sung.

    The USCCB raised this issue at their last meeting and approved an amendment to the GIRM which is awaiting Roman recognitio. Here is the document.
  • Kimberly also said on December 11: "(As a side note, i have a copy of BFW and am still confused about how to use it.)"

    In our seminary's recording studio, I have recorded a 35-minute DVD explaining how to use By Flowing Waters. If you'd like a copy, I can burn one for you. Please send me your mailing address.

    There are also helps on my seminary website: http://www.pford.stjohnsem.edu/

    Blessings,
    Paul
  • I hope everyone clicks on that PDF file that Prof. Ford attached here. If it is approved, it will be the first clear thing on this subject to appear in any quasi-official document relating to music. The confusions on this subject are unbelievable and have persisted for 37 years. The first problem was that the Missal appeared four years before the Gradual appeared, making people believe that the new rite has no music that is intrinsic to it, and that all that was necessary was the arbitrary musical setting of the Missal antiphons. Then the Gradual appeared with different antiphons, which caused confusion among the few who noticed, but the GIRM itself persisted in confusing the issue in edition after edition. Then there was Music in Catholic Worship, the authors of which didn't even seem to know that there were such things as propers. At least Sing to the Lord straightens that mess out, more or less. Even now, we constantly encounter surprised priests and singers who note that the communion we are singing is different from the antiphon in the missallete.

    And people wonder why Catholic music is in such a mess!
  • Lawrence
    Posts: 123
    Dr. Ford,

    A most interesting document you've shown us. Do you know the possible reason why the cantor's role is taken out of the Communion antiphon but not the Entrance Chant? And would this removal of the cantor from graph 87 preclude that "responsorial" hymns that are often employed?

    Should I start a new thread on this?
  • Sharp eyes, Lawrence! I never noticed this until you mentioned it. It is clearly a mistake and I'll have to point it out to the BCL.

    Gratefully,
    Paul
  • AOZ
    Posts: 369
    The proposed amendment posted by Paul Ford looks like a move in the right direction. It seems to me that what we have in the GIRM as it stands now is a result of ignorance on the part of the powers that be. I think it is wise for us to be wary, however, of such careful scrutiny on the part of the USSCB at this point in time. The amendment would put the Roman Gradual front and center, at last. But what about the status quo? How would this filter down? Can we really expect recognition of the change, or change in practice at the local level? The majority of church musicians, singers and pastors, not to mention congregations, will not be clamoring for it. Might the amended language not be another cause for putting pastoral concerns, and the much dreaded phrase, "all things being equal," at the center of any discussion?
  • Cantor
    Posts: 84
    So, what about this paragraph from “Sing to the Lord”?
    77. The Entrance and Communion antiphons are found in their proper place in the Roman
    Missal. Composers seeking to create vernacular translations of the appointed antiphons and
    psalms may also draw from the Graduale Romanum, either in their entirety or in shortened
    refrains for the congregation or choir.
  • That section of sing to the lord doesn't seem inconsistent with the proposed GIRM change. Added: I see now that the problem is the ambiguity of the phrase "proper place."
  • Good observation, Cantor. This too needs correction in light of the proposed amendment to the GIRM.

    (Can you tell me how you quoted Sing to the Lord with the blue background and the darker blue band on the left margin? What is the HTML coding for that? And while you're at it, how do I include italic and bold in entries?)

    Gratefully,
    Paul
  • Cantor
    Posts: 84
    Use <blockquote>...</blockquote> for the blue background stuff. Literally, it just tells the browser that “this is a block quote”, and the style sheet tells the browser how to draw the block quote - which, in this case, it’s doing with the blue background and indenting.

    Use <i> and <b> for italic and boldface, respectively. I believe these both are deprecated HTML tags since they want folks to use style sheets for that stuff, but for blog posts it seems overkill to type <span style="font-style: italic">...</span> just for italicization.
  • Dr. Ford, that is great to know regarding the Missal antiphons (Entrance/Communion).

    Would one still be free to use the Graduale propers or even a translation thereof? I would at least hope anyways.

    And what about the priority of Lectionary vs. Graduale when singing the "intervening chants" during the Liturgy of the Word?

    Peace,
    BMP
  • Yes, Brian, one would be free to use the Graduale propers or even a translation thereof. That is what we in the Collegeville Composers Group did in our Psallite project for The Liturgical Press.

    It seems to be, however, that the Lectionary has priority over Graduale when singing the "intervening chants" during the Liturgy of the Word. This is because the Lectionary of the Mass of Paul VI was composed on a different principle than was the lectionary of the Mass of Saint Pius V.
  • Thank you, Dr. Ford. Since I'm embarking on a compositional project of my own, this will be a great help.
    BMP

    PS: I too am a big fan of "By Flowing Waters". The chants are excellent. I was a little disappointed, however, last spring when I used one for Communion and my then-pastor wasn't too keen on it (He likes the Latin Mass and traditional hymns in Latin and English; however, Graduale (Romanum/Simplex/BFW/etc.) chants don't sit well with him for some reason, in either language). (sigh)
  • Cantor,

    You are right, it is not advisable to use and tags, but you don't have to resort to s either. It is more appropriate to use and for bold and italic, respectively. This plays better with html and xhtml compatibility.

    Apologies if this is getting off topic. -B. Matthew, osj
  • Dr. Ford,

    I, too, am quite impressed with your work on BFW. However, I do question the inclusion of so-called "tropes" within the ordinary chants of Mass. I understand that their use was sanctioned in Liturgical Music Today, and - most-recently - in STTL. But neither of these documents cite authoritative sources for their approval, and tropes were never a part of the Simple Gradual.

    Thanks again for your work!

    - Mike M.
  • "Hymns are one thing, but chanted texts, since they ARE part of the Mass, can sound rather jarring if they are in another type of language."

    Gavin, does the use of "Thy" in the Our Father at Mass bother you?

    We owe God more than common, every day, vulgar language in the Holy Mass. It is not jarring, if one remembers who God is.
  • As I have recently pointed out to some friends locally, consider two aspects of our contemporary Mass that NEVER changed: 1) the poetic turn-of-phrase "Thanks be to God", and 2) the remaining Tudor English pronouns in the Lord's Prayer. I hold that, when the entire rest of the Mass was totally dumbed down, these two simple traditions were not. Why? Because there would have been such a huge outcry from congregations everywhere! They didn't dare touch those two! But touch the rest they did! And move it on into the parochial school system as well. We should not be surprised now that some people are very uncomfortable with any poetic Tudor English. But remember that the people most uncomfortable are our modern plague of "liturgists"!

    Tudor English has been set quite successfully to the 9 Psalm tones for centuries, and with very little adjustment of the melodic options of each tone. ICELese requires much more melodic adjustment, and still doesn't sound all that good. There is a serious need for a more traditional, "sacral" style of English in the Mass.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Actually, Jules, yes it does. I roll my eyes every Mass during the Lord's Prayer when the ICEL text has "hallowed be thy name" followed by "...are yours" at the end. It's quite out of place. "We owe God more than common, every day, vulgar language in the Holy Mass." Too bad for God. We're stuck with ICEL for now, so I'm only advocating that we should have relative uniformity within the vernacular during Mass. If we're going to have "high" language like the thees and thous of the Pater, we can have them throughout. If not, eliminate them in the Pater and antiphons as well.

    "There is a serious need for a more traditional, "sacral" style of English in the Mass." I agree, but I think that in the context of ICEL that antiphons with Tudor English tend to be jarring.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Gavin, that's an interesting observation. I wonder about the habit of not noticing it. Is it because "thy" is so easy to say, whereas "thine" requires more effort? This is all unconscious habit, so I'm wondering if something physiological underlies it.
  • Steve Collins wrote:
    Tudor English has been set quite successfully to the 9 Psalm tones for centuries, and with very little adjustment of the melodic options of each tone. ICELese requires much more melodic adjustment, and still doesn't sound all that good. There is a serious need for a more traditional, "sacral" style of English in the Mass.


    ICEL should not be blamed for the psalm translation we have in the lectionary, which is the NAB.

    That's why I favor the NRSV among the newer, horizontally inclusive translations. Its poetic texts use more syllables and more traditional expressions than the NRAB. YMMV.
  • Pes. "Thine" is only used if the next word begins with a vowel. Grammatically, Thy and Thine are equal. Even today, whenever I find myself chanting a Responsorial Psalm verses with something akin to "My eyes", I almost subconsciously make that "Mine eyes", which eliminates the glottal start to "eyes". Used correctly, "thine" and "mine" are actually easier.
  • Pes
    Posts: 623
    Steve, you're right!

    The Pater contains all "thy's" -- always followed by consonants.

    We do say "For thine is the kingdom..." which obeys the rule and makes our mouths happy.

    Gavin's example of "for the kingdom ... power ... glory are yours" would not be improved by substituting "thine" at the end. Is there some rule about plural that we're missing?

    Eliminating the glottal starts, though -- hooray! Not nearly enough attention like that is paid to contemporary hymn-writing. The majority of ears must be made of tin, or perhaps the composers have never been choristers.
  • "... and the glory are thine" would be an improvement, but not an improvement on the whole "For thine is the kingdom, and power, and the glory ..." that everyone, Catholic or not, has heard thousands of times even before Vat. II and ICEL!
  • Gavin said:

    "Too bad for God."

    No, NOT too bad for God. Too bad for the folks who have dishonored Him, because they will be punished. NOT "too bad for God."

    "We're stuck with ICEL for now, so I'm only advocating that we should have relative uniformity within the vernacular during Mass."

    That does not follow. The Mass has always been a mixture of ancient and more modern things. In the old days, there were Sequences with Latin, German, and Greek texts. Let us do the right thing, and God will reward us.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    So God's going to punish people for using ICELized English or reward us for using KJV English? Sorry, but that's not my religion.

    Hopefully what you MEANT to say is that the use of beautiful language draws one closer to God and the use of banal language does not have such an effect. That I can agree with. I reject the idea that any language is so beautiful that it can demand graces from God; looking at it that way is a non-starter. Rather, fine language draws us to Him. However, as I've said, within the context of the Mass any different styles of English will stand out. "..who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name....and the power are yours..." is not beautiful. It sticks out like a sore thumb. I've had similar experiences at other churches. I recall being at an Anglo-Catholic church and being shocked and even a little scandalized that the announcements after Communion were in street English. On the other hand, I find the local Orthodox Divine Liturgy quite beautiful because the language is consistent high English straight through. I repeat: consistent English can be beautiful. Inconsistent English is typically not. If you find beauty in flip-flopping back and forth, good for you, but I and I would assume many others find it quite jarring and I'd prefer not to exacerbate the problem.
  • "So God's going to punish people for using ICELized English or reward us for using KJV English? "

    No, Gavin, the folks who pushed for vulgar language will be punished. (read my first post)
  • This weekend, we read through the English renderings of some ordinary chants from Flowing Waters. They are quite excellent! Every parish that is not yet using Latin and needs English ordinary settings should strongly consider using them.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    We use the penitential rite based on a mode VIII Kyrie (I forget which one and am too lazy to look it up). It's quite nice and the congregation picked it up well.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.