How much rewording of Ordinaries is acceptable?
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    I seem to remember a discussion some months ago that one of the key benefits of the new settings of the revised English Mass Ordinaries would be that composers would be sticking closer to the actual new translation, rather than paraphrasing and throwing in extra words and phrases at will.

    So I was a bit surprised last Sunday to sing a new setting in which "Agnus Dei" is again mis-translated as "Jesus, Lamb of God." More troubling, to me, was an added phrase to the Gloria. The WORDS of it said:
    Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, on earth peace to people of good will.

    but the pauses in the music clearly indicated:
    Glory to God in the highest || and on earth || peace on earth || peace to people of good will.

    Now, I'm all for peace on earth, no problem there. But this seems an overly clever way to slip an extra phrase into the Gloria. I found it kind of strange, because it just felt like a random "peace on earth" phrase thrown into the middle of a sentence.

    So my question is: What are the guidelines given to composers about what kinds of modifications to the words are acceptable?
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    By the way, the reaction to all this change was entirely uneventful. Before Mass, the director explained that these are the new Mass settings to be introduced with the Revised Missal in Advent, and that we're starting to use them now so we can get familiar with them. We practiced the Gloria once before Mass, then did all the parts during.

    There was no gnashing of teeth, no burning of effigies. No more anxiety than any other time we've switched settings. And I heard no comments at all about the new words, either positive or negative. People just sang it the best they could.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    Well, it's something of an old practice.

    For a simple example:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gi0zDlA0GTY

    I guess my rule would be is, if you as a composer are as good as Mozart, Palestrina, or Bach, you can try it out. Sensible Roman shoes on this one...
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 857
    Here is the US bishops' policy.
    BCL policy musical compos.pdf
    75K
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    This seems Bass-ackwards!
    The OFFICIAL policy is:
    -songs with newly made-up words do not need any specific approval, although you are "encouraged" (not required, just encouraged) to use texts that are actually, well, any good.
    -settings of THE EXACT WORDS of the approved translation of the Ordinary need to be tripled checked to make sure (what?) that you really did use the exact words

    I repeat:
    If you want to do any damn thing you want, that's okay.
    If you want to do what the Church requires, you have to get special permission.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    I don't know that I got that impression from it, Adam. It just seems to say: We're much more serious about accuracy in the Ordinaries than we are for songs and hymns. Which is unsurprising.

    But regarding my original question about changing the Ordinaries, it seems that there's room for modifications, as long as they're approved. In the case of the example from the Gloria, it might be interesting to know if those who approved the change were aware that the phrasing of the music is so different from the phrasing of the words.

    Thanks, Paul, for helping to supply a clear answer!
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Mr. Ford, with all due respect, this was written back in 1996. Liturgiam Authenticam trumps it:

    60. A great part of the liturgical texts are composed with the intention of their being sung by the priest celebrant, the deacon, the cantor, the people, or the choir. For this reason, the texts should be translated in a manner that is suitable for being set to music. Still, in preparing the musical accompaniment, full account must be taken of the authority of the text itself. Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place.39

    In fact, when his Eminence, Francis Cardinal Arinze, then-prefect of the CDWDS, released the revised Ordinaries to give composers a chance to start setting these to music, he was quite clear that the text needs to be followed.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    The lacuna is the question of whether repeating words in the approved text (as opposed to introducing new words in the approved text) falls outside longstanding custom that has permitted it for centuries. In the Catholic world, where there is doubt about the law, the law might still bind, but not gravely. Hence my nod to sensible Roman shoes instead of trying the elusive silver bullet.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 857
    Carl, which company published the mass you reference?
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    OCP, it appears. But the publisher doesn't have a whole lot of influence over the content of the music, do they?
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    OCP. How surprising....

    Isn't the publisher the one who is able to publish it or not? Can't they tell the composer "fix it or it doesn't get published" or something like that?
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    Publishers are the bane of publishing.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    I would think the publisher would only complain if they think it's not going to sell. I wouldn't imagine that they think they're in charge of enforcing the Church's rules.

    My view of OCP wasn't helped by the fact that some years ago they dropped the Mortem Tuam from the Chant Mass setting. When I contacted them, they explained that it was merely because it hadn't been popular enough, didn't get enough votes. And no, they didn't add it back the next year.

    They're in the business of selling songs.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Well then why do they call themselves a "catholic press"?

    Just thinking out loud, couldn't the bishop of the diocese do something about this, especially with them calling themselves "Oregon Catholic Press"??
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    It's "Oregon Catholic Press," not "Oregon Church Mouthpiece."
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I don't see your point, though I think I might have a hunch about what you're getting at. Can you elaborate?
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    They're not an official publishing organ of the Catholic Church.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Still.... there has to be something the bishop can do. IDK, maybe not.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    Weren't they owned by the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon at some point? Are they still?
  • Pancho
    Posts: 27
    History:

    Oregon Catholic Press (OCP) had its beginnings more than 80 years ago. In the early 1920s, the Ku Klux Klan was rampant in Oregon and the persecution of Catholics was one of its main goals. To combat the Klan, Archbishop Alexander Christie established the Catholic Truth Society of Oregon -- the original name of OCP. The Society's purpose was to provide Catholics and non-Catholics alike with information about the Church and the activities of its educational and charitable institutions.

    In 1980, the Catholic Truth Society changed its name to Oregon Catholic Press.


    Meet the current members of the OCP board of directors, led by Archbishop John Vlazny of Portland.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    @ Paul Ford

    I think he's referring to Schutte's Mass of Christ the Savior (for the gloria, at least. Not sure about the Agnus Dei).

    Watch and listen to this travesty
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    @ Ben & @ Paul

    Does "Jesus, Lamb of God..." count? The worst part of this setting is that it's essentially the same music (melody and harmony) for every part of the Mass.

    When I attend the parish nearset me, I'll have to endure this setting for the present ... sigh.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Well, Ben, the particular setting doesn't matter so much. What I was asking was the degree to which rewording and repetition is allowed. There's various settings I've heard that take various liberties like this, so I was wondering how much creativity the guidelines permit.

    And the resource Paul supplied was beautifully useful for answering the question!
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Actually, Carl, the resource that Paul supplied is out of date and is superceded by Liturgiam Authenticam. In fact, as I noted in my initial reply, Cardinal Arinze, speaking as Prefect for the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, specifically stated that the Mass settings needed to adhere to the guidelines set forth by Liturgiam Authenticam.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 857
    I was prepared to let your previous remarks go uncorrected and uncontradicted, but your most recent statement moves me to set the record straight. You've overstated your case, Michelle.

    The U.S. Bishops policy is not contradicted by LA; and Cardinal Arinze's remarks do not have the same weight as LA itself. You need to study the relative authority of various documents. A strict interpretation of the passage you cite from LA does NOT apply to the text Carl provided.

    I invoke the canonical principle here: favorabilia amplianda, odiosa restringenda—favorable understandings are amplified (favorabilia amplianda), burdensome understandings are narrowed (odiosa restringenda)!
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Not to mention the fact that there is no disharmony between the policy mentioned (the officially translated text must be used exactly) and LA (here's the rules on how texts are officially translated).
    That's like saying that the new speed limit signs supersede the older policy of "you must follow the speed limit."
  • aquinasadmirer
    Posts: 102
    Hello Smart/Wise/Knowledgeable Folks,

    In reading this thread, I have a few questions about the BCL document written in 1996.

    • I noticed in the notes, that it references the GIRM of that time. Does that reference still make sense with today's GIRM 2011? I can't find the corresponding reference.
    • I noticed in the policy notes that it references the document Music in Catholic Worship which has been superceded by Sing to the Lord
    • I also noticed, that it references the Sacramentary. After Advent of 2011, will we still have a Sacramentary in the United States? Does this change matter?


    Paul suggests that "You need to study the relative authority of various documents." Good advice.

    Where does one read about how to read the documents, and their relating authoritative positions? That way, we don't get bamboozled. What is the heirarchy of authority--what documents are more binding than others--for the documents we're discussing: LA, BCL GIRM, MCW, STTL..? Do some have recognitio from Rome? Do some require it? What comes into play here?

    -M
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Contrary to what Mr. Ford keeps contending, LA and the new GIRM supercede a policy that is already 15 years old. Furthermore, the authoritative documents of the Holy See supercede whatever Sing to the Lord has that is in contrary to these documents. The fact that Sing to the Lord does not bear a recognitio from the Holy See makes it non-binding. Cardinal Arinze sent a letter, in CDWDS letterhead, attached with the Order of the Mass when the CDWDS released said revised order to allow the composers ample time to set these to music. This is not some off the cuff remark that the good cardinal made; this was an actual letter.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    BG
    Let's set aside the hierarchy of documents issue for a second, because I'm confused what's got you all riled up here.
    Where is the disharmony you see between the policy above and later "legislation?"

    The policy says that if you're going to set the liturgical texts to music, you have to use the official texts as given, without changing them.
    Oh, and you have to have your setting approved so that everyone knows that you've used the official text.

    LA changed the rules for translation, and Cardinal Arinze has re-affirmed that, yes, you really do need to use the official texts, just like you were always supposed to (not that every one did, but that doesn't make it right).

    As a cartoon in my High School Latin textbook asked,
    "Ubi ignis est?"
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    "Sing to the Lord" isn't exactly non-binding.

    And Cardinal Arinze writing something on official letterhead doesn't make it canon law.

    And I think Paul Ford knows a bit more about this than you.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    My understanding of 'how to read documents' was that Roman CDL or Papal legislation controls all liturgical praxis (Canon Law so states); and that unless there is a specific exception granted to a Bishops' Conference, the Roman document stands.

    So BenedictGal's cite of the head of CDL would seem to be the controlling legal authority. He was, at that time, the Liturgical Legislator.

    Thus: is there a specific exemption granted to USCC regarding text?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Three different documents say the same thing.
    Quick! Someone tell me which one is right!
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    Sing to the Lord is only binding when it refers to the authoritative documents of the Holy See. However, given the fact that it does not have the necessary recognitio from the Holy See, the parts where it departs from what is allowed are not binding.

    The policy that Paul Ford quoted is 16 years old, rather outdated. Obviously, it does not take into account Liturgiam Authenticam and the mandates the 2001 authoritative document sets forth.

    PGA, while you may seem to not have much regard for the Prefect Emeritus' letter, it does remind the bishops that they must adhere to LA No. 60 and ensure that the musical compositions obey the requirement.

    Here is the letter:
    http://old.usccb.org/romanmissal/RecognitioLetter.pdf

    Furthermore, this was also binding back in Sacrosanctum Concilium.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    It would be helpful if someone would ask the Bishops' Committee on Divine Worship whether the 1996 policy needs any possible revisions in the light of Liturgiam Authenticam.

    Tropes for the Penitential Rite remain legitimate -- the BCDW newsletter indicated that as recently as 2010 -- but I wonder if tropes for the Agnus Dei might perhaps be excluded now. Also, it's not obvious that a Gloria with refrains gives the congregation the sort of integral participation intended.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I think ICEL itself has exercised some control, but this Schutte thing must have slipped through.

    The more I think about this piece, the more it upsets me. Seems like a childish prank - whether intended that way or not.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,944
    It's just not Schutte. I had a choir member ask me about a revision to a staple vernacular Sanctus setting in our hymnal that the music director recently edited to reflect the new text; he asked if the "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord / Lord God of Hosts" was going to be a problem. While the double use of the word "Lord" was not musically necessarily, it was understandable, and I said that, in light of the long custom of repeated words, it wasn't something I'd raise as a problem with the powers that be.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    The Gloria does not need to be responsorial in order for the faithful to sing it. It can be chanted antiphonally, with the choir doing one part and the faithful doing the other. Responsorial Glorias were not envisioned by the Church, as I understand it. In fact, one Vatican official called this responsorial form an "aberration".
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    If someone runs across other similar instances, could you please post them here?

    It is rather obvious that changing the text to make it more metrical or to otherwise suit the composer's interest is contrary to the whole spirit of this reform.

    I'm not interested in calling out the police here. But I am interested in letting people know which Mass settings are unfaithful to the Church's explicit wishes here.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    let me add that there is no reason to assume that these are approved by USCCB or ICEL, just because the sheet music says so. It would be a real service to the Church to find rogue editions that change the text and then make people aware of which ones are openly rejecting the text of the new Missal.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    Tropes for the Penitential Rite remain legitimate -- the BCDW newsletter indicated that as recently as 2010

    Chonak, not to pick (and I don't have a copy handy), but is this fact not true because the GIRM 2010 indicates this, NOT because of SttL?

    Like Dr. Ford, I think BG is overstating her case, but if the BCDW was to state the you COULD still trope the Agnus Dei, then it would be incorrect. The tropes for the Agnus arose out of the abuse of consecrating the Precious Blood in a flagon or cruet, then pouring it into cups DURING the Agnus: am I right? Therefore, when this practice (pouring) was reprobated in Redemptionis Sacramentum, it would follow that the change in the words of the Agnus would cease as well, arising as it did out of an abuse.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    "In fact, one Vatican official called this responsorial form an "aberration".

    Benedictgal, could you tell me where I can read this?

    Last week I found pew cards in all the pews with Marty Haugen's new settings, and his Gloria has the 'refrains.' (I believe they get these settings for 'free' because the parish bought hymnals, Ritualsong, from GIA about a year ago. It seems to be very hard to get out of those hymnal companies once you are in for various reasons.)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    @BruceL: yes, GIRM 52 permits tropes for the Kyrie. My understanding about STTL is that STTL is not binding, except when it restates material from authoritative documents; unless some individual bishop were to go out of his way to make it binding in his diocese.
  • BruceL
    Posts: 1,072
    Chonak: agreed! I wasn't debating the authority of it: my point is that I always like to appeal to the most "powerful" documents, if possible. I can stand by the GIRM...not as much by SttL because of the aforementioned reasons. I will never forget how frustrated I was with one bishop who gave an address, quoting from Music in Catholic Worship (in 2010, no less!). The only problem: the quotes from MCW were actually from Sacrosanctum Concilium! Why not go directly to the source, and help people's knowledge of the actual documents of Vatican II?

    Everyone, isn't the bigger issue that in the former translation, "Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of power and might", was most often rendered thusly: "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord///////God of power and might"? The traditional mode, of course, being "Holy, Holy, Holy//////Lord God of [hosts]".

    Right? This is the biggest obstacle with the new Sanctus: NOT the word change, but rather the phrasing conventions of the old translation. Anyone in my corner on this one?
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Gotcher back, Bruce!
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,451
    Bruce!
    Totally with you- I even addressed it my review of the (wonderful) Psallite setting:
    http://musicforsunday.com/2011/new-mass-setting-reviews-psallite-mass-at-the-table-of-the-lord

    I didn't know any one else cared about such things.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    @mia, this was an off-the cuff remark at a conference. Suffice to say that it seems to me that this is more of an American invention that has also creeped into the Spanish settings. OCP rarely has any non-responsorial Glorias in either language. The bad thing about these responsorial versions is that it cuts off the prayer in strange places.

    Bruce, that is why I refuse to sing the current Haugen travesty. He and the composer who wrote "Mass of the Joyful Heart" did the same thing. It seems to me that this is arrogance on the part of the composers who think that they can "improve" upon the Church's official wording.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    I agree, Bruce, and that was my original complaint with this. "And on earth //// peace on earth //// peace to people of goodwill" has a significantly different meaning than "And on earth peace, on earth peace to people of goodwill."

    People know the phrasing they sing, they don't know when a comma is placed in an unexpected location.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    @ Bruce and Carl

    Actually, in the score it's:

    And on earth, (rest)
    peace on earth, (rest)
    peace to people of good will.

    The commas as I give are the ones in the score.

    And for the Agnus Dei, it's not only "Jesus, Lamb of God..." but later also "Jesus, Prince of Peace..." - hopeless!!

    ... when and if I go to my local parish, this is what I have to endure. I'm about to make a point of going across the St. Croix every Sunday.
  • Carl DCarl D
    Posts: 992
    Interesting! One Sunday we had a photocopy of the music that the choir was presumably reading from, and it said "and on earth peace, on earth peace..." Since the first Sunday, we've had a couple of other rewritings which are being projected on the overhead projector (that's another conversation, let's not sideline this one) but the latest is now back to "and on earth peace, on earth peace...."

    So I had been assuming that's how it appears in the original. But it could be that there's multiple versions floating around.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,151
    Well, here is the PDF link to sample pages of the beginning of the Gloria on the composer's website for this Mass. People can judge for themselves.
  • benedictgal
    Posts: 798
    I scanned it briefly. Given the fact that Schutte is the composer, I would imagine that it is par for the course for him. There are just too many repetitions of Glory to God. Why can't composers just maintain the integrity of the text and not fool with the placement? This is, in my opinion, irresponsibility on the part of the composer and the publishing house. That is why it is better to stick with the ICEL settings that are found in the Roman Missal or what folks here at CMAA have composed.
Add a Comment