It certainly is impressive, though I'm confused as to its usefulness seeing as how it is not an approved translation. Is it intended for use in a non-Catholic communion?

The text seems to be based on the latest Missal revision, including the recently added dismissal alternatives (Go in peace/ Go forth to proclaim the Gospel, etc.)

The Vidi Aquam and Asperges adaptations he prepared could probably be used today.

Hi all!

My name is Jonathan Lee Ching, I'm the guy that set the Missal text.

This is the text of the 'whitebook' provided by the US Bishops conference. In South Africa we have moved over to the new translation of the ordinary with the previous translation of the propers. Unfortunately some changes have been overridden by the Bishops Conference of SA, but I have decided to remain faithful to the 'Whitebook' (which,BTW has received regognisio, as you know) until the dust settles.

Here is the link:
http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/WhiteBookAnnotated.pdf

This is what I sent Mr Tucker

'Dear Mr Tucker,

please find attached an attempt of the ordinary of the updated translation of the Novus Ordo, set to the tones of the Mass. I do not pretend to be proficient in the Gregorian style, but I'd thought I'd have a go at it and get as much input from sacred musicians and priests as possible. There are some notable problems especially with the setting of the Vidi Aquam and Asperges me and probably some other things. Inspiration comes from the Tones as in the Liber, the Novus Ordo Sacramentary (hence the setting of the EP prayers - unorthodox perhaps), the 'Jubilate', Priory Press and the Anglican Use Gradual.

I find that with the recent upheaval with the release of the Motu, those who are able to bring beauty to the Normative Mass have set off on focusing all their energies on the Gregorian Rite alone, where I am anyway.

I study music at the University of Port Elizabeth, South Africa and hope one day to enter into scared music full time; and God willing and if my parents allow, I would like to attend some workshops with the Institute.

Please correct, guide and give as much input as you are able

Thank you so much!
Jonathan Lee Ching'

In the same breathe, I ask as many as possible to correct, guide and give as much input, so that the missal may be improved on.

The main idea is to notate all sung parts for the English service and have one fully notated book per season, rather than is our case, where the priests have to work from three or four resources, usually trite and out of touch with any form of tradition; and sometimes gladly changing texts as the option still stands for something 'suitable'.

I hope that everyone here continues the great work of ensuring the worship of our Saviour is the best we can offer!
Peace!
Jonathan

Ok, I'm so sorry. I'm an idiot. Of course it is the new translation. Why can't I learn to read things more carefully? Oh well, clarity at last. I'm sorry Jonathan!

Impressive indeed, obviously a labor of love.

Most of the chants are syllabic, as one would expect. The Asperges/Vidi aquam chants seem to be among the few that are more elaborate. For the Asperges/Vidi aquam, I had the same difficulty as janetgorbitz--following which neumes correspond to which syllables. The Solesmes typesetting convention is to begin the neumes of each syllable over the syllable's vowel. Sometimes this involves spacing syllables out a little more than one might expect, especially for the more melismatic syllables. Of course, this comment is based on the PDF--sometimes things shift a little in conversion to PDF.

A couple of other comments. For one initial syllables of one letter (example: I saw water), there should be a way to show which neume(s) go with the large red capital. In my 1961 Graduale, a dash holds the place of the large initial capital (Example: the Ascension Offertory: A-- scendit De-us). At the very end, for the alternate "mysterium fidei" responses, it might be better to use the same position of the Do clef for the priest's intro and the response.

Well, I had to take it down

Dear Mr. Tucker,

On 27 August 2008, I wrote you a letter (see below) asking that you not include settings of the new Order of Mass texts on the music sacra site. Recently it has been brought to my attention that the "Missal of St. Cecilia" containing the new texts was included on the site. Again I kindly ask that these texts be removed from the site until the new Order of Mass texts have been promulgated by the Conferences of Bishops.

I appreciate your kind attention in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Yes. I believe the time has come for some one, or some organization a lay Catholics, to appeal to Rome to get this cleared up. This is astoundingly inappropriate for members of the Body of Christ to be acting this way! (Unless, of course, ICEL and associated publishing companies consider themselves outside that Body, in which case, why should we give them any heed whatsoever?)

Jeffrey - Thank you for taking it down so promptly.

I doubt that there is anybody here who can state categorically that there will be no changes prior to dissemination by the USCCB. The Pope has asked that the "kiss of peace" be moved to precede the Offertory. There is an attempt under way to reinstate "Christ has died..." following the consecration. There may well be others less publicized.

What we see here is NOT an attempt to interfere in musicians' right -- and obligation -- to prepare musical settings. We see a request that these works not be published in any way until everything is finalized. To do otherwise will only lead to confusion in the future as to which setting is the authoritative and correct one. Even today as we sing "Jesus, Lamb of God..." and find "peccata" translated as "sin" or "sins" depending on the whims of the composer there arise petty arguments over validity.

I don't dispute the idea that some authoritative directive from Rome holds the possibility for clarifying the situation, and perhaps it should be pursued. But I can also understand why the often reviled copyright has to be put in place, so that corporal legal measures can be taken when the requests of the Church are ignored.

If the concern is preventing publication, i.e., worldwide dissemination of the not-yet-approved-texts, perhaps a closed, invitation-only forum would be acceptable.

WJA

I fail to see the difference between these people and Johann Tetzel.

"Unless a coin in ICEL's coffer rings,
the congregation is not allowed to sing."

Also, the term "simony" comes to mind, somehow...

WJA - I think you have an excellent idea. Companies exchange information about future developments under Non-Disclosure Agreements on a regular basis. Perhaps the serious Catholic composers should do the same. Set up a private network where they can exchange ideas. And agree to keep in under wraps until such time as the authorities decide it should be made public.

Of course some people on both sides will likely cry foul, but that's often the surest way to confirm that it is fair.

already IS public. It is viewable on the USCCB website.
Anyone can go there and download it, view it, copy it, etc.

This seems to be a common sense even to those who are not techincally oriented. Study the music and view them and improve, what's worng with that? (especially among musicians who care about the sacred music, not just among the 'currently' composers.) We are not even having the congregation sing it.

If this is the approved text for South Africa and South Africa is permitting the publication this music with this text without any sanction, ICEL has no right nor power to block us from viewing it, sharing and, in the privacy of our own homes EVEN SINGING IT.

Jonathan Lee Ching's work cannot and should not be supressed.

FREE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHANT! FREE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHANT! OD YOU HEAR US ICEL? WE DO NOT LIKE YOUR POLICY OF SUPPRESSION AND IT IS TIME FOR IT TO END. FREE THE SOUTH AFRICAN CHANT.

I need a drink of water after that.

Jeff - I don't believe the translation is intended to be held back, since the USCCB does post the words. Reading the letter Jeffrey Tucker received it is the settings that he has been asked to withdraw. There is nothing at all to stop your composing. It is the public posting of those setting that are at issue.

"Reading the letter Jeffrey Tucker received it is the settings that he has been asked to withdraw. There is nothing at all to stop your composing. It is the public posting of those setting that are at issue."

OK....why? It doesn't make any sense and there is no possible justification for it. As a matter of fact, it flies in the face of what the Vatican has asked.

Who is ICEL to tell me I can't do whatever I want with my own music??

There is no reason or justification for what they are doing. They might was well tell me I can't drive a pink car if I want to. They have as much right to do that.

Yeah, Gavin is right. ICEL is using the state's laws to do this. They only apply in this country. And to ICEL's credit, they are liberalizing slightly: letting us send via email, and promising to let us distribute via web after conf. approval. The absurdity of course is that the SAME texts are currently being distributed on sites in other Eng-speaking countries. It's all a silly dance done at the behest of mega-publishers (my own reading of the situation).

Hello GIA!

ICEL gets most of its money from royalty payments, so GIA probably has to pay them when they print ICEL Mass texts in hymnals and booklets.

Just to be cautious, can you rephrase that? "I also heard..." sounds like an unsubstantiated rumor. If it is, it might not really be suitable to post it on this forum.

GIA and OCP both offer Grants to churches. And who pays ICEL? Who funds ICEL? It's not a secret, it's all right here:

http://www.icelweb.org/publishers.htm

The U.S. has one member on the ICEL committee: The Most Revd Arthur Serratelli, Bishop of Paterson, New Jersey, U.S.A

I'm very glad someone warned me about my post. I was expecting it and hoping it. (Thanks Chonak, you are absolutely right about posting a rumor.) But before I posted what I said, I gave thoughts on this. And I decided to post it, even without the evidence. (thanks Noel for the link.) I really needed to hear about it from others. (if it was just a rumor, someone will say we don''t have to worry about it, and I just need to apologize for being ignorant.)

I want to ask another question here. What the ICEL people really worry about posting the music? Are they worry about people being confused with new music and new texts before it is finalized? People are already used to all the confusions. In my opinion, keeping them until last minute and not permitting to post music of the composers who wish to do so, don't help anything. I think they should be more open about the music as they are open to the new texts. Why do they bother to post the text to the public then. They should have given only to the registered catholic musicians or something.

An interesting list which is tiny by comparison to those who would be publishing Catholic liturgical materials in absence of state-granted monopoly privileges, and the list interestingly excludes some who use ICEL texts and do commercially publish, such as Solesmes and Magnificat. There seems to be some slippage here.

Again, we need to ask the question why anyone should have to pay a private monopolist to print the mandated and authorized text of the liturgy of the Church. That is a more fundamental question than the one above but it is a serious one. As you know, the PBC does not use the ICEL text simply because we couldn't afford it (though in retrospect it was wise not to print it).

I really shouldn't or cannot accuse ICEL for anything I really don''t know. But the reason of my speculation above is for us to think ways to stop that our churches get bombarded with with Haas and Haugen style of profane music again, and our cogregation is forced to sing them whether they want them or not, and also this doesn't become a business opportunity for GIA and those to sell more hymnals. They are in business, their goals are pretty different from people here. It seems that those who want to post their music with new texts seem to have more genuine goal of promoting sacred music and share them and improve them, than those who keep them secret until the last minute. Our Church want to change the texts, besides being close to latin only, I feel that she wants to do away with those profane music. And the Church hopes that the musicians who really care about the liturgy will have a genuine opportunily to bring out sacred music. This can be done only with support of ICEL and thsoe people who are in authority. I truly believe that this thread is more on helping those sacred music composers and bringing better music for our churches in US, not so much on accusing faults of others.

Oh I don't recall for sure. But it is not just the cost. It is the cost of keeping up with the cost. We are all volunteers.

Right; so it seems that ICEL is telling the US bishops they may post it on-line, but you lot are not to do anything further with it.

Is that the criterion they're applying? Or are they permitting lay people in certain countries to share the texts, but not in the US? It is lunacy.

By the way, I've sent a note to a canonist friend for any angle he can offer.