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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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?"

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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?

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."

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.

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.

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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)

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.