Confusion as to whether the SEP are approved for liturgical use in the United States
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    There seems to be a lot of confusion as to whether the SEP are approved for liturgies in the USA (C.f. this discussion)

    Does that mean the faithful can similarly ignore the GIRM with regards to an official English translations of the Propers and the Sequence?

    There seems to be a lot of needless confusion on this point.

    We use the Simple English Propers at the college Chapel where I am the DM. The translations used in the SEP are identical to those in the Vatican II Hymnal (which also contains the Graduals and Tracts), and have been approved for liturgical use by the local Bishop of the Diocese where the hymnal was printed (as of August 26th, 2011). This is in accordance with what is required by the Church. Source: July 2012 Dubium to USCCB Secretariat

    In terms of the chant melodies themselves, those are also approved, according to the USCCB Secretariat of Divine worship:

    On June 25, 2008, Fr. Richard Hilgartner wrote:
    Since the documents speak of the nobility of chant and the rich musical heritage of polyphony for the liturgy, those musical forms are by nature "approved" for liturgical use.

    Source: July 2008 Dubium to USCCB
    Thanked by 1Ragueneau
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    I don't think that the SEP are officially approved in Australia, but quite a few places make use of them, including a couple of seminaries, catholic colleges/universities, the Australian Catholic Student Assocation annual conference, etc.

    The SEP are English adaptions of the Chants of the Roman Gradual, and as such I cannot see how they would not be acceptable, even if not officially approved. There are certainly a step better than the rubbish most parishes use for music.
    Thanked by 2Ben Ragueneau
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    Indeed. Even if it doesn't technically qualify as anything more than an alius cantus aptus, it's a very, very good alius cantus aptus.
    Thanked by 3Ragueneau Michael O'Connor benedictgal
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I have NO idea why this keeps coming up.
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    "This is in accordance with what is required by the Church"
    No it is not! It is in accordance with what is required by the USCCB. GIRM 48 is quite clear on the matter, that it is THE (local) diocesan Bishop or the national conference that must give approval. This seems like another case of communion in the hand, that if done illicitly for a long time, no one can stop it. As one commenter in the above referenced discussion link said, "The rules don't apply to us", and the "us" is the USA.

    It also explains the bad music. I wonder if the USCCB has a cut in the profits from the hymnal publishers. Allowing the publishers to command the show would suggest so. The free enterprise system that runs this show is not known for promoting high culture, that is, cultural excellence. High culture does not produce much profit. It seems one has to worship God in USA according to the rules of the marketplace with music that is selected by virtue of the profit it will generate for the publishers. In other countries, there are national hymnals, an idea not particularly friendly to free enterprise. If the early Church would have adopted the marketplace to determine value, we would never had had Gregorian chant. Gregorian chant is high culture at its best.

    Anything that is sung in public worship (i.e. at Mass) should have the approval of Rome, but it seems to have washed its hands of responsibility here, thanks to the vague idea of inculturation. However, the national conference or the Bishop in the diocese where the public worship takes place has this responsibility. To ignore it is to ignore the GIRM, or deliberately conflate its meaning. It does not say any diocesan Bishop but THE diocesan Bishop where the substitute to the Propers is to be sung. If there is any doubt a dubium should be sent to the CDW, but failing that GIRM 48 strictly applies and not what the USCCB claims. For crying out loud, we are talking about public worship of God, not some circus show. Why does not the USCCB take its responsibility on this most important area of Catholic life instead of passing the buck?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    The "bad music" is not due to the system of approving musical compositions. It predates it. "Bad music" is a long-standing custom in this country (and probably some others too).
    Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    Oh, but the current "system" of approving the music allows the "bad music" in the pews. If there were a national hymnal with no "bad music" in it, you would have no "bad music" sung at Mass. We have come a long way from the Liber Usualis it seems.
    Also, the Mass is "lex orandis, lex credendi". When you allow any ol' hymnal in the pews as a source for sung prayer, you get any ol' faith as the result. Bad catechesis can readily come through bad music.
    Actually, I wonder why we need commercial hymnals in the first place, when the psalter is the hymnal of the Church. Not much profits in psalters I guess.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Fortunately this thread is about the USCCB approving good music, which is a step in the right direction.
  • hartleymartin
    Posts: 1,447
    Someone needs to send copies of the SEP to the Bishop's Conference and ask them to officially approve it. I might just take a copy down to my local Bishop and ask him to approve it in my diocese (considering that his Director of Music already regularly uses them!)
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    No it is not! It is in accordance with what is required by the USCCB. GIRM 48 is quite clear on the matter, that it is THE (local) diocesan Bishop or the national conference that must give approval. This seems like another case of communion in the hand, that if done illicitly for a long time, no one can stop it. As one commenter in the above referenced discussion link said, "The rules don't apply to us", and the "us" is the USA.

    VictorW, from your comment, it is obvious you didn't take the time to follow the links I referenced.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    There is a moral issue here.

    It's simple, any parish that sings music with texts of questionable theology or with a priest that improvises Mass texts or ignores the instructions concerning "eucharistic ministers" has declared itself exempt from control by the USCCB or any governing body and that means that SEP is ok to be sung.

    "They" really have decided to drop the entire mess in the lap of the parishes and sit up there in their ivory tower with expense accounts (it's a tough job).

    I had more respect for monks and their work till I found out that in some orders the vow of poverty does not exist.

    If your church sing I am the bread of life....
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Even as stodgy and old as I am, I still program 'bread of life' about 4 times a year to keep the choir natives from revolting. I wish that were our only major problem.

    For my own information, who said the SEP can't be used? Did anyone in authority actually say or write that?
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    I agree with Noel, that the SEP is by far superior to the "musical trash" found in so many pews or coming from the sanctuary area. But that is not the point. The point is the question of approval. Like the main commercial hymnals, the SEP is not prohibited in USA, but like those hymnals it is not fully approved either.

    Msgr. Rick Hilgartner has issued this statement as found in one of the referenced links above :

    "There is no expectation that the diocesan bishops of each of the 190 dioceses of the United States would have to follow up with their own review and/or approval, though an individual bishop may choose to offer some particular clarification about what is used in his diocese. This is the USCCB’s way of implementing GIRM # 48. The Holy See (The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) is aware of and supportive of this method of enacting the norm. I am not aware of problems or questions resulting from this procedure."

    In other words the USA is exempt from GIRM 48 according to him, and according to him, the CDWDS is supportive of the illicit actions taken by the USCCB. Why is it that other countries have national hymnals, but not the USA? In fact most Christian denominations in USA have their own hymnal! The Episcopal 1982 Hymnal and chant books for the Propers are amazing, and too bad these are not fully Catholic. The Msgr may not be aware of any problems, but it seems to me that the current system is producing "bad music" in pews, and that is a huge problem.

    To continue, I find the "no expectation" for the 190 bishops almost insulting to the faith. These bishops are responsible for the liturgy in their diocese. The liturgy has to do with God, in case someone is wondering, so what are they there for? On the other hand, there is a way out of it they really please, and that is to have the national conference approve a national hymnal, or, better, a national Mass Chant Book.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Given their track record so far, do you really want them putting together a hymnal? Dear Lord! It would be so rotten you probably couldn't even get it to burn if you tried.
    Thanked by 4Charles in CenCA Gavin E_A_Fulhorst Ruth Lapeyre
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    CharlesW: I actually agree, but you see the problem. Why is it that the Episcopalians can do such a great job for their faith, while Catholics are at the mercy of the commercial jingle publishers? The Episcopal music books are able to serve both the traditionalists and the moderns, yet the music in there is generally of very good quality, well thought out. Not too many jingles in there such as for the responsorial psalms. The USCCB in its current state must be shaken up and it must not be allowed to pass the buck. Just doing that will force a re-evaluation of Catholic music in America, a source of unity for the faith. Surely American Catholics could do just as well as the Episcopalians. I understand there is an unofficial schism in the US Catholic Church as there is elsewhere, but you have to take the bull by the horns some time before things get even worse.
    Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    It's a crying shame that so much of the sense of nobility which Catholic music should possess has been squandered at the top ... and turned over to money changers. :(
    Thanked by 2ScottKChicago E_A_Fulhorst
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Thank God the Bishops HAVE been hands-off, and may they ever be so!
    Thanked by 2E_A_Fulhorst bgeorge77
  • SanAntonioCath
    Posts: 77
    VictorW, I'm rather at a loss to understand what you're talking about. The SEP is approved for the United States as far as the Bishops are concerned, according to the criterion they have set (see my initial post).

    Why are you bringing up a national hymnal in the context of this? The Graduale chants would not appear in such a book . . .
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    CDWDS is the relevant curial dicastery. It's their job to act as the Holy Father's agent and provide guidance according to their interpretation of the norms in the GIRM. If the Congregation approves the USCCB procedure, that would seem to make it licit, at least for now.

    If anyone wants to officially question the practice, or hire a canon lawyer to petition for a change, go ahead. Let us know when you hear back from Rome.
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    SanAntonio:
    The Bishops of USA have not approved the SEP with its English texts. Only one Bishop has at last count.

    Chonak:
    Has the CDWDS approved the practice? The Msgr. claims they are favorable, but that is his opinion.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Victor, the statement from Msgr.'s letter (available through the link above) is "The Holy See (The Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments) is aware of and supportive of this method of enacting the norm."

    But if you think that that is merely his opinion, you can ask the CDWDS to verify or deny it.

    If you need tips in hiring a lay canon lawyer for your petition process, there's an excellent one near Albany. $200+ an hour, but if it's worth it to you...
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    Chonak:
    In other words, like you began this post, the faithful can similarly ignore the GIRM.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    The reason that Episcopalians do not have the problem of rampant below-mediocrity is that they pay their musicians at a higher level than Catholics do, even at the Cathedral level. Compensation for Episcopal priests is also higher.

    Standards for applying and being accepted to an episcopal seminary are higher, especially now that men have to compete with women for the positions.

    Since they are paying more, there is more respect for the musician. Better paid, better trained results in better music and putting a cold shoulder to the pseudo folk music and an absolute ban on the cheesy broadway tunes in the majority of the E churches, the opposite of the RC churches.

    I'm got an article in the works about how the renaissance in RC music this time, remember this has happened over and over again in the past when "popular music" styles sneak in, about how this time it is quite different....just got to get it done.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    The bishops, under current church law, are required to approve the text of music to be sing but none of them, as far as I can tell, are doing anything about it.

  • E_A_FulhorstE_A_Fulhorst
    Posts: 381
    VictorW: Well, given that the USCCB, ratified by the Holy See, interprets the GIRM, and this is precisely what happened in this situation, if monsignor is to be trusted, it really isn't a matter of us ignoring the GIRM as much as being subject to a certain interpretation of it.

    You may say that this is a bad interpretation of the GIRM and folks here will be happy to hear you out --- but that is quite a different thing than saying we are supposed to be "ignoring" the GIRM.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    As Gavin says, "I have NO idea why this keeps coming up." The Code of Canon Law is clear:

    Can. 824 §1. Unless it is established otherwise, the local ordinary whose permission or approval to publish books must be sought according to the canons of this title is the proper local ordinary of the author or the ordinary of the place where the books are published.

    §2. Those things established regarding books in the canons of this title must be applied to any writings whatsoever which are destined for public distribution, unless it is otherwise evident.


    Can. 826 §1. The prescripts of ⇒ can. 838 are to be observed concerning liturgical books.

    §2. To reprint liturgical books, their translations into the vernacular, or their parts, an attestation of the ordinary of the place where they are published must establish their agreement with the approved edition.

    §3. Books of prayers for the public or private use of the faithful are not to be published without the permission of the local ordinary.


    Can. 838 §1. The direction of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church which resides in the Apostolic See and, according to the norm of law, the diocesan bishop.

    §2. It is for the Apostolic See to order the sacred liturgy of the universal Church, publish liturgical books and review their translations in vernacular languages, and exercise vigilance that liturgical regulations are observed faithfully everywhere.

    §3. It pertains to the conferences of bishops to prepare and publish, after the prior review of the Holy See, translations of liturgical books in vernacular languages, adapted appropriately within the limits defined in the liturgical books themselves.

    §4. Within the limits of his competence, it pertains to the diocesan bishop in the Church entrusted to him to issue liturgical norms which bind everyone.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • BachLover2BachLover2
    Posts: 330
    @Paul Ford,

    Be careful here, Paul, because you're actually bundling together several things that are quite different. Official liturgical books are *NOT* the same as, for instance, hymnals. Nor are "any writings whatsoever" (which applies to, for instance, spiritual reading). I can recommend several books on how to read Canon law, if that would help. However, your particular questions would probably be easily resolved by simply writing to the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    BachLover, it would be a mistake to think that Professor Ford (who kindly taught a session at the Colloquium) needs any beginners' tips in this area.
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    The clarity Prof Ford purports to have found in the Canon law articles he cites, makes things even more confusing for me. Are hymnals considered liturgical books? Is the SEP a liturgical book? After all, the Propers are liturgical texts. If so, any translations into the vernacular from the Latin in them must be first sent to the Vatican for review before they can even be considered for publication and use in the liturgy. That would include Prof Ford's own By Flowing Waters. Furthermore, it would be up to the national conference to do those translations from official liturgical books such as the Graduale Romanum, or Graduale Simplex. And finally, it would be up to the local bishop of each diocese to approve the way they are used in his diocese.

    Also, Can 824 speaks about where those books are published. Does that mean an approval in that diocese constitutes an approval for all dioceses, including those around the world? I could see that happening for books that speak about the faith, but not for those to be actually used in the liturgy.
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    VictorW, please google "alius cantus aptus."
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Victor, just to clarify and to distill, for my own benefit, are you suggesting that

    A) SEP and By Flowing Waters (translations of GIRM 48 options 1 and 2) should not be used in liturgy on the grounds that their translations have not been approved by the Vatican; and furthermore that

    B) no hymnal currently in use in the USA should be used in liturgy on the grounds that none is approved by the USCCB?

    If this is true, something really needs to be done, and fast.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    Doug: It seems that is the conclusion I am forced to draw from all these discussions.
    The Graduale Romanum and Simplex should have been translated into English by ICEL a long while ago, that is, if they are to be used in translated English form in the Mass. I don't think the USCCB has any interest in seeing the Propers replace hymns as they may not be within their idea of active participation by a worshiping community, so don't expect too much from them.

    Are these books used during the liturgy licit? I do not think they have been prohibited, but they do not seem to be in conformity with Church law. The point is, the texts of these books are used in the liturgy. Hymns are not part of the Mass, but they are texts allowed in the Mass, and so should have full serious approval. However, the books that contain the Propers are liturgical books because the Propers are part of the liturgy. As translations from the Latin, they would need approval from Rome.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    The Graduale Romanum and Simplex should have been translated into English by ICEL a long while ago, that is, if they are to be used in translated English form in the Mass.

    The Graduale Simplex was fact translated into English by ICEL a long while ago, and By Flowing Waters uses this official ICEL translation.
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    Robert: Ah, very good! So that leaves the Graduale Romanum and its usage in the SEP.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,640
    So full serious approval is given to a hymn unrelated to the proper texts, but a dignified (if not official) translation of the actual propers should be avoided?

    I suppose propers should be banned, then, unless sung in Latin.

    Bummer.
    Thanked by 2Gavin CHGiffen
  • VictorW
    Posts: 10
    I don't think they should be banned. The problem, as I have been intimating all along, is with the USCCB. Their idea for worship is to let the marketplace decide except for what Rome has strictly ordered, which means don't expect much from them when they can't even get a national hymnal going, and put out a ridiculous guide book on music for the Church which would never pass Roman approval.
    Perhaps the ICEL should be petitioned directly to translate the Roman Gradual into English.
Add a Comment