Considering SttL directly contradicted Redemptionis Sacramentum on this point, the stipulation was moot anyway.

Oh good. Now we can actually use the approved texts instead of having to be all creative!

Whether or not STTL has force of law, it has a heck of a lot of influence. I don't think people on the forum are greatly different from people in general. They tend to dismiss what doesn't fit within their agendas. Why would anyone expect otherwise? At a practical level, musicians and priests in the parishes do point to STTL as justification for what they do. That being so, I am glad for the clarification. I never went along with adding those extra verses to the English "Lamb of God," even going as far as rewriting the wording for the dreaded Mass of Creation. May it rest in peace.

I know. I still don't want to use it. In our case, everyone has heard it so much we are all sick of it.

It was never OK, but too often done. Why, I am not sure. I never saw what the composers/liturgists thought they were gaining by changing texts.

One can parse the technical legal definitions of the canonical status of STTL all you want - but - when a conference of bishops issues a document that is said to guide the liturgies in their conference, that is going to not only have influence, but also LEGITIMATELY has some influence, since the bishops are the chief liturgists in their local churches.

Yes, I know - the CONFERENCE doesn't have the same authority that an individual bishop has - I know. Once again, the LETTER OF THE LAW officially verses reality. Just like in civil law.

Historically, the trope was inserted as any one of a variety of rhymed, metered texts inserted after the words Agnus Dei and always concluded with miserere nobis or the final dona nobis pacem.

The modern, abusive, post VCII tropes, most notably demonstrated by the infamous "Mass of Creation" destroy this pattern by replacing the words Agnus Dei with other Christological references ("Prince of Peace", "Bread of Hope", "Cup of Love", etc., ad nauseum) rather than expanding on the sacrificial nature found in the invocation "Lamb of God". These other invocations seem to point to other qualities of the nature of Christ not directly associated with the sacrificial work of Christ on the Cross who is offered again in a bloodless sacrifice on the altar. Liturgical texts contain and convey a special and specific meaning. To tamper with those carefully crafted texts and meanings with these kinds of "creative", but careless, texts and tropes only serve to weaken and destroy the meaning and therefore the sacramental theology contained therein.

Also, from what I have gathered in my reading and research, it's not altogether clear as to whether or not these ancient troped forms of the Agnus Dei were actually sung during liturgies. It would seem, although I'm open to further enlightenment on the subject, that these troped versions of the various chants were more commonly used in devotional para-liturgies and NOT within the context of the Mass, and may not have been as widely popular or employed for nearly as long in the history of troped chants as we've been led to believe.

since the bishops are the chief liturgists in their local churches

OK, I'll bite (and parse.)

Under Canon Law, Rome reserves to itself all liturgical law. That means the Pope, although he may delegate to Cong/Worship. Therefore, the phrase "in union with the Pope" has meaning in this context, too.

Secondly, a committee of Bishops is not to be confused with The Bishop, just as the USCC is not to be confused with The Bishop.

Prof. Mahrt, among others, noted that STTL is a strange document, seemingly written by two differing people (or camps.) It is a fine example of cognitive dissonance in many regards.

So which of those 'liturgists' should be obeyed?

Actually, it was about time that the tropes were trumped. Over at another forum, I was trounced for insisting that this sort of thing should not be happening. It seems to me that when the authors of Sing to the Lord came to this particular section, they should have consulted with Liturgiam Authenticam, which specically states that:

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

Had SttL been submitted to Rome for recognitio, I daresay that the document, in its entirety, would have been cleaned up.

I'm sorry, but- wasn't this covered in a dubium or something like last year?

I highly doubt that all the tropes I see in my facscimiles of ancient graduals were made for "pretend" masses... Who can seriously believe that?

It would be amazing if the book:
"Tropen zum Gloria, Sanctus und Agnus Dei im Graduale Romanum
hg. von Anton Stingl jun., 2012, EOS Verlag Sankt Ottilien"
were published at the same time as they are than officially banned for usage with the Mass.

http://www.gregor-und-taube.de/index.html

Yes I have an agenda, but it's a medievalist pre-trent continuity agenda... not the 1st century pseudo-protestant humanist agenda of the contemporary camp.

I must echo john m's opinion...

I challenge you to find 3 people in a congregation of 500 who care or even notice when these tropes go away. The only people who are objecting to this are those with an agenda or who resent the Holy See inserting itself into ANYTHING.

I would think that most people want to do what the Church asks, but don't know what that is -- because they've been served pablum versions of it for years. If you ask most people why they go to Mass, I think you would find some who said that they wanted to worship God, while others might say that they (as a community) wanted to praise God and share Eucharist (not THE Eucharist, but merely Eucharist).

Out of the mouths of 6 year olds come gems like this one, which I've cited before: "Daddy, why does the priest have his back to Jesus for the whole of the Mass?"

Some people will genuinely not see anything wrong with the mindless tropes, because they assume good will on the part of those who compose and find their works in books approved by bishops. Others don't know that there is, in fact, a set text to be used, not as one option among many, but as the assigned text. Liturgy has become, in the minds of many, what WE do, instead of what God does and what the whole Church does in obedience to God.

I'm sure many of the sacred musicologists (Mahrt, Doug/Mike/CHG et al) could clarify this, but the invention of "troping" sacred scripture texts certainly predates not only the medieval Church, but in reality, are as old as the emergent texts eventually consolidated into our liturgical rituals. I'm just relying upon old research memories from my grad studies.

Given the history of tropes (and assuming that it's accurate), all we've learned is that church musicians are STILL o.c.-syndrome folks: fill every hole with mo' MUSICK!!

Now and then a gentle administration of the 2x4 across the noggin would help.

STTL, what a great example of a decoy document.
Craft something close to what you're suppossed to do, insert random liturgist cravings, mix in funky and flowery language to shift focus, and voilà! Who cares about the real deal?

Why was STTL needed? Oh yeah, a CYA attempt to bring MCW into line with reality. But, alas, times had changed so much that the more faithful STTL (less creative than CWA, but closer to MS and the current GIRM) was still far enough off the mark that no one even tried to go for recognitio.

As usual, what we have is a battle for authentic ecclesiology. Thank God things are being clarified in Rome. The identity crisis in the Church continues... but a little clarity is heart-warming.

MaryAnn, ya just can't make this stuff up! (At least, I can't.)

I'm with melofluent; if you're going to be bad, be awful. Be an A or an F.

Dunno, Adam. I see your point.
Maybe the unnecessary cheesiness factor was enough to irritate some people in Rome?
Sadly, people who want to define the Church and her worship along the lines of their own preferences are prone to pushing the envelope. This time it was 'returned to sender'.
Cue: melofluent.

"Wise men say 'only fools rush in....but I can love- tropes in the big trash bin!" (Does anybody have some peanut butter and a banana, stat?"
Bravo solution, SMO!
As someone who never, ever did MoC, my only experience was with B. Farrell's ubiquitous version back in the 80's. Seemed silly then, so dropped it like a bad habit.

I'm here all week.

You bring up an interesting point at the end of your post, incantu. The GIRM no. 83 actually specifies that the normative way of singing it would be the congregation responding to the choir or cantor.

"The supplication Agnus Dei (Lamb of God) is usually sung by the choir or cantor with the congregation replying;"

Most places that even do this usually have the cantor sing "Lamb of God/Agunus Dei" with the congregation taking it up from there. But being a litany, the more logical choice would be for the congregation to only sing the final phrase "have mercy on us/miserere nobis and grant us peace/dona nobis pacem."

If we are to follow the GIRM closely, and taken in context, this would easily open us up to a polyphonic agnus deis with a simple chanted response from the congregation, since the congregation already is assumed not to be singing, except for the final phrase of each line.

What I find interesting (rather disapointing) is that while MOC in it's revised version conforms to the Missal, many of the newly composed settings pushed by the Big 3 do not. Suffice it to say most of the highly marketed newly composed settings are also musically inferior as well.

Maybe it's because I'm in "da U.P." (Bishop Sample's diocese, may the good Lord protect him and keep him with us!) and out of touch with the world below the Bridge, but...this strikes me as such a non-issue. Catholics who have a problem with singing the given text, the whole text, and nothing but the text, clearly have a problem not with the text, but with the Church. As a parish musician, their problems are not my department. They need to take their concerns to the Pope. Good luck to them. I think his Holiness has bigger fish to fry.

Having not been present during the period you mention, I could not say, sir.