Is anyone else REALLY ANNOYED at the new doxology "Amen?"
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 783
    So, I was previously at a church where the pastor started chanting a lot of things; prior to the new missal translation for several years. After several months of hearing him chant the doxology at the end of the Eucharistic Prayer, and the congregation sang the simple "A-me-en," I found it hard to *not* sing that when I was at a church where the priest would chant that, (but then would be interrupted by a completely unrelated instrumental introduction to some insipid "Amen."

    So...it seems that everyone has their beef to pick with the new translation. (I recently heard a very "orthodox" priest bemoaning some of the lengthy sentence structures in the collect for Immaculate Conception...and after reading through it myself, I had to agree!) But for myself while I *should* be completely supportive of the translation, and especially of the encouragement which so many priests are (surprisingly) picking up on, encouraging them to sing their parts, I am really irritated by the tone of the new doxology.

    While I don't have the words or music in front of me at the moment, it seems that the previous "Through him..." ended something like "re-mi-re-re--do-re-do" on "forever and ever," resulting in a very obvious "Amen," beginning on "do," THE NOTE WHICH THE PRESIDER ENDED ON. (As I mentioned above, it was so intuitive, that I myself could hardly resist singing at other parishes.)

    Now with this new translation... it ends on something like "re-mi-re-re-do-re-mi-re" and the congregation is expected to pull "DO" out of their rear-ends?!?! (to have the "Amen" be "A-me-en" still on "do-do-re")

    I am very lucky to currently be at a parish where the priest is chanting as many parts as he can, and during Advent the congregation has been singing the missal chants... although with NO help from this new tone! The only way the congregation "gets it," is when I loudly start on the correct note immediately after the priest has finished singing. Not exactly what I would call "intuitive..."

    (At another church with which I am familiar, the MD doesn't even "get it," that this two-tone "Amen" isn't just "another Amen," but is actually the natural response to what the priest has just sung. Surprised? I'm not. :-( )
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Okay, the old one has: for(g) ev(a)er(a) and(b) ev(ag)er.(g.) (do re re mi re-do do), and the response was A(g)men(ga) (do do-re).

    The new one has: for(b) ev(ag)er(ga) and(b) ev(ab)er.(a) (mi re-do do-re me re-mi re.), with the same response.

    The Missale Romanum 2004 has: Per(e) om(g)ni(a)a(a) sae(b)cu(a)la(a) sae(g)cu(a)lo(ag)rum(g). A(g)men(ga). (la do re re mi re re do re re-do do), response is same.

    So the termination of the old Missal was a bit more like the Latin than the new one is.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Originally when the chants for the new Roman Missal were posted on the ICEL website (in 2009 I think, when you needed a password obtained from your diocesan liturgy office to access them), the music for the doxology made sense: like the Latin, it ended on DO and led easily into the Amen: "for ev-er and ev-er"= "do-re-re-mi-re^do-do"

    Then for some reason the wording of the doxology was changed and the melody corresponding to "omnis honor et gloria" was shifted to the "for ever and ever" and the melody from "per omnia saecula saeculorum" went out the window.

    I agree that this "tweak" is annoying. At the church where my schola sings, the priest is sticking closely to every letter of the new translation, but is still singing the old 70's doxology. I really can't blame him.
  • rsven
    Posts: 43
    Ditto. Except, the people do get it. But I had the same response, Marajoy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Having heard priests sing in unknown keys for years, I give the pitch on the organ before the "Amen." It seems to work fine for us, and the congregation follows easily.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    "unknown keys"
    I love that, CW!
    It's particularly funny, in retrospect only, when you have such a celebrant who's deeply in love with his own voice when singing, who happens to change tonal center in the Preface say five or six times, each of them a few cents short of whatever he imagined that center to actually be in the first place!
    I have also experienced more than one celebrant these last four weeks having given up chanting the Per ipsum in the new translation, some in mid-phrase. It seems to be the only thing that flummoxes them from MR3. Fascinating.

    Ancillary: since Richard (either Richard, any Richard for that matter) has a good ear for liturgical legislation, would you one of you consider slipping in (like Wikispooks) a passage into the American GIRM:

    "Celebrants who can adequately and demonstrably (either to the local degreed parish musician or his presiding bishop and/or the bishop's designate) prove they can match pitch with beauty and dexterity may request of the local see and indult to have celebrant orations accompanied, if so desired, in a manner that compliments the Missal/Sacramentary settings and in the key of his choice, all things being equal. Those celebrants who wish to chant the orations without accompaniment may continue to do so. Celebrants who wish to be provided intonation pitches that they cannot reproduce themselves with surety will not encumber the organist or musician present with requests for such prompts and/or accompanimental guidance. In such cases, recto tono is highly to be encouraged and employed."
  • Adam Schwend
    Posts: 203
    I'm far more annoyed by the decision to use the "Snow" Lord's Prayer, as opposed to the ICEL one, which so many of the preparatory material had. We made our own booklets, which include the Missal tone....only to find out that the US Missal has a different tone altogether....*grumble, grumble, grumble...*
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,700
    I actually have no problem with the Snow chant. It seems like almost everyone in the United States knows it... Go anywhere, start singing it, and people join in. It's like Agnus Dei XVIII. It's not the ideal setting, but its ingrained in people's minds in a way that other chants are not.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    The Snow chant was the single most successful bit of vernacular chant in US Catholicism. The restoration of it to the Missal was a huge advance for sanity. It also is superior to ICEL's attempt to shoehorn the Our Father onto the Latin Pater Noster melody.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Sanity? Superior? Sticking with something merely because people like and sing it is why churches sing drek.

    I used the Yiddish spelling for Hannukah.

    .פריינט טאָן ניט לאָזן פריינט זינגען באָבקעס
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,092
    Yes, Noel, I understand your perspective that, if the people want to sing something, it must be dreck that should not be admitted to the Holy Sacrifice.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    I would hope that we could remember what season (Advent) we're in, how and why it serves our prayer and mission, and agree to table or "let go and let God" to Whom we are daily imploring "O", pettiness, annoyances and personal agenda that distract us into division and resentment.
    Can we not represent ourselves with some measure of celebration? For example, whenever in our parish a celebrant chants any oration, or (miracle of miracles) intones the chanting of the Snow, I see that as an occasion for jubilation.
    When I've been provided to offer the Proper antiphons within their rightful place within the liturgy, even if conjoined (stuffed) to another hymn, I'm overjoyed. I'm heartened and encouraged, enthusiastic. When I hear a long-term vicar or my pastor say "You know, those Simple English Propers are really quite effective" I'm a six year old rolling down a grassy hillside!
    Can we, knowing I can be just as cranky as anyone here, reconsider the easier urge and reaction to sit like magpies on a wire mocking what the finches and sparrows are doing down the line? Let the crows at the other blog(s) carry on such.
    I know, pretend you're at colloquium before you submit and hit "Add your comments."
    Lo, how a rose e'er blooming....
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Deciding to NOT learn the ICEL chants is not something that should be done. Having a universal chant mass is something that we all have wanted, to now step back and refuse to use it weakens the cause.

    If we want the popular music style music that has become standard in the past to remain the "chosen music" for diocesan events, then we should not bother to learn the ICEL chants. But every parish that does not know them becomes a group that cannot sing at diocesan celebrations.

    This is not a personal agenda. I know that Snow has been standard, I mentioned this myself a few years ago and was politely told that it is not gregorian chant as it is upside down, by someone infinitely more qualified than I to judge a chant. Today in sketching out a spanish psalm antiphon, I referred back to that learning moment and made sure that it rose and fell like a chant should.

    The Snow can be replaced. Criticizing the ICEL chants is only fuel to those who do not want chant.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    Charles, '

    You are absolutely right, and that should apply to the person who wrote:

    "when you have such a celebrant who's deeply in love with his own voice when singing, who happens to change tonal center in the Preface say five or six times, each of them a few cents short of whatever he imagined that center to actually be in the first place!
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Noel, with respect, in the totality of the post inwhich you excerpted that quote of mine, the tone I intended was one of "que sera" and acceptance, tolerance and love despite all. I am concerned that you cannot discern basic humor and humility in it, and forgive me if I'm off-base, in a great deal of the goings-on in this, our own forum. That's okay, my brother, I've been there and called on the carpet by the best of us here and elsewhere.
    If you need to qualify and parce out assessments of intent and character so that whatever you want to herald becomes clearer to us all, then more power to you.
    I yield to your voice. Maybe you have some advice for the DirMus who deals with such a celebrant whom I described as merely an illustration to CharlesW's wonderful turn of phrase.
    And lastly, if we rally around the wonderful flag risen that is the SIMPLE ENGLISH PROPERS without much rancor, why should we waste CO2 debasing the Snow? Tell me, please, what sense and purpose does that hold for us all?
    And unless I'm mistaken, which is often, I believe the decision to default to the Snow in missal publications was mandated by the USCCB. If congregations across the fruited plains take up chanting the Snow because of that mandate, and the rest of the chanted responses to the ICEL orations, how exactly is that a bad thing?
    Peace to you.
    C
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    If we wish to return to the Latin Mass as a preferable form, then singing the music of the Latin Mass, even in English, brings everyone closer. If we feel, deep down in our hearts, that guitars and the ever-changing translations of the Mass into the vernacular, then singing the Snow may make sense.

    Parishes that wish to follow the USCCB in continuing to dumb down the liturgy may do so, those who wish to delve into teh ineffable may not. It's not a tennis match with a winner declared at the end.

    The episcopal church has been through all of this. But through its parish structure with a strong vestry, the priest is accountable to the vestry and the bishop.

    The catholic church creates a parish council with no strength, and, when it acts if the pastor dislikes their "recommendations", he is free to dissolve the council.

    When an openly gay, non-celibate bishop is ordained, the episcopal church is split asunder. That's the strength of the people, not the priests. In one state where the people were violently opposed, the majority of E Priests voted in favor.

    The episcopal liturgy has evolved into a form that makes some, of not many, yearn for the anglican use parishes. Hopefully the liturgy AND the vestry will be preserved. This role model could save the RC church.

    Unfortunately, this can siphon off many who, like many EF'ers, for good reason, after leaving the OF behind have no interest in improving it.

    Smiley Faces were not created to be cute, they have a function. ;<)
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 783
    CCC-
    good grief. I was just trying to say that perhaps it would *easier* for the general population to sing the chants, (and thus they might be more likely to do so!) if even one as simple as the "Amen" had been written to be sung more naturally, even without an obvious music leader who "knows" the starting pitch.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,186
    I agree completely with marajoy. I wonder what the rationale was for not doing something like this:



    GABC code:
    centering-scheme: english;

    %%

    (c4)

    T{Hrough}(h) {him},(j) and(j) with(j) {him},(i) and(h) in(hi) {him},(i) (;)

    O(h) {God}, almighty Father,(jr) (,)

    {in} the unity of the(jr) Ho(ji)ly(h) Spir(hi){it},(i) (;)

    all(i) glo(i)ry(h) and(g) hon(h)or(i) is(h) {yours},(h) (,)

    for(g) ev(h)er(h) and(i) ev(hg){er}.(g) (::) A(g){men}.(gh) (::)
    alt-doxology-aae.pdf
    35K
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Okay, okay already. I'm not happy with this change of chant, either. However, it seems to me that ...

    (1) Instead of nit-picking about choice of text for the translation ("consubstantial", "people of good will", etc.), we are now engaging in nit-picking about notes.

    (2) There must be musicological explanations for the particular choice of termination and responding "Amen" which we might try to uncover and thus be in a position better to understand and edify ourselves (and others).

    (3) I've just looked back through a rather large number of items in the Simple English Propers and find that, in many, many cases, the Antiphon (which, ideally, the congregation joins in singing) begins on a note different from the final note of the Psalm tone - and yet I don't hear anyone complaining about that.

    (4) Does anyone really harbor the notion that complaining about this situation (as much as we seem to be doing) is really going to cause a change by the powers that be to be taken seriously anytime soon?

    (5) If you are handed a piece of music that you do not really care for but must perform anyway, do you grouse and complain about it and do a crappy job of singing it - or do you do your best to make it as good as possible?

    (6) Besides, my guess is that, in a few weeks or months, people will become accustomed enough to the new version that this will be a non-issue. That said, it behooves all of us, Celebrant, Choir, Cantor, Congregation to do our part to get this right.

    Meanwhile, let's be charitable and have a Blessed, Holy, and very Merry Christmas!
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Celebrants (and anyone who chants a text by themselves) frequently take liberties with the music for their parts, and that's OK, since they don't have to sing along with anyone. So I can't see that there would be anything wrong with a priest committing Aristotle's version to memory, or pasting it into the missal...just saying.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    That might be okay for a single celebrant - although the congregation/cantor/choir might be left hanging. And there might be real problems with a concelebrated mass.

    I suppose while they're at it, people should just say "and also with you" instead of ...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    What's wrong with the English chant mass? Well...

    1. It isn't written in square notes as God intended
    2. There is an actual chance the congregation could sing it
    3. It doesn't have St. Gall flyspecks on the page - analyzed to death as if they were of significance to anyone but music scholars
    4. It may be sung with organ accompaniment - OK if the organ is a shrieking North German Protestant clone
    5. It has 5 lines instead of 4
    6. God hates it because it isn't Gregorian

    I'm with you, CHGiffen! I will take those ICEL chants over Mass of Creation, any day.
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,186
    I should say that while I'm not really annoyed by the new solemn-tone doxology (which I will be teaching to my pastor), I'm very happy with the simple-tone doxology :•)
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 762
    Here's a similar case of someone who has constructively offered improvements on the preface settings: post the first and post the second.

    ps this blog is one to keep an eye on. Its author doesn't post frequently, but he's always worth reading.
Add a Comment