Mortem Tuam in modern notation
  • lmassery
    Posts: 249
    Dear friends,
    can someone please provide a modern notation version of the mystery of faith in latin, moretam tuam.
    I have looked and looked and can't understand why it is so difficult to find! Thanks
    This is the one here
    http://www.liturgyoffice.org.uk/Resources/Music/Jubilate/Acclamation.pdf
  • A google image search produced this in the first five results. http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/88/45/57/myster10.jpg
  • lmassery
    Posts: 249
    Yeah but that's an ugly scanned copy. I need something much crisper for a worship aid
  • It is printed in several GIA hymnals.

    The scanned version referenced above looks like it was taken from #371 in the RItualSong hymnal. It also appears at #349 in Worship, Third edition and at #304 in Worship, Fourth edition (eliminating the word "deacon.")
  • lmassery
    Posts: 249
    Thank you. Although I'm still looking for a pdf of it. I guess I will just transcribe it myself - it's not long.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,324
    I attempted creating a PDF. When I posted it, the clefs and time signatures were missing. What am I doing wrong?
  • JulieCollJulieColl
    Posts: 2,437
    It's #18 in the Liber Cantualis from the Monks of Solesmes.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,227
    here - made this is sib last year. if you want me to adjust it in any way, let me know, i still have the source file.
    871 x 305 - 36K
    Thanked by 1lmassery
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    I use the RitualSong version every year during Lent.
  • lmassery
    Posts: 249
    OK I made one myself.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,227
    update... oops... the horizontal episema is on the wrong note in the one i put up. will correct and post again.
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,227
    fixed
  • RevAMG
    Posts: 130
    It's not a perfect version, but maybe something that will help.
    Thanked by 1lmassery
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,324
    Another try.

    Thanked by 2chonak lmassery
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 8,227
    ronkrisman

    The horizontal episema is missing at the beginning
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,324
    The horizontal episema is missing at the beginning

    Actually the approved liturgical books in Latin do not agree on this point, that is, whether there is a horizontal episema, or not, on "-am."
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,324
    I checked these books in my library to see if they included the horizontal episema (h.e.) under discussion:

    Ordo Cantus Missae, 1970, p. 185, NO
    Missale Romanum, 1971, p. 918, NO
    Graduale Simplex, 1974, p. 9, NO
    Jubilate Deo, 1974, p. 20, NO
    Graduale Romanum, 1974, p. 810, YES
    Gregorian Missal, 1990, p. 26, YES
    Parish Book of Chant, 2nd ed., 2012, p. 17, YES

    It appears that the h.e. first appeared in the 1974 (Solesmes-edited) Graduale Romanum. Whether that was a good or bad addition, I leave to the judgment of those more knowledgeable about idiomatic chant composition.
    Thanked by 2WGS tomjaw
  • Not an episema, not a quilisma will pass from the chant until all has been accomplished.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,324
    Remember also: Woe to you, monastic scribes, who slow down the people with your horizontal beams and will not lift a finger even to give momentary relief.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    I have about concluded Solesmes did as much harm as good to chant. LOL.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,014
    People stopped breathing as well in 1974. It was either the environment, or marijuana, or Watergate, or smoke-filled rooms in general.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Charles,

    No less an authority than Pope Saint Pius X disagrees with you.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Pius X, although a great pope, didn't have modern scholarship at his disposal.
  • Charles,

    Modern scholarship brought us the Jesusbewegung. Modern scholarship brought us Gender Theory, BCE and CE, the renumbering of the psalter, Piltdown Man, Liturgical Antiquarianism and other advances in human endeavors. No offence, but citing modern scholarship as a reason to set aside Pope Pius X simply won't wash.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Modern scholarship also brought us airplanes, cars, and medical advances that have saved countless people from disease and death. Such scholarship is not considered a bad thing by most.

    I am not so sure Pius might have preferred other chant editions if he had access to them. Unfortunately, we went from Solesmes which edited chant that it never really understood, to the good old St. Gregory of Nicola Montani, which even credible musicians in the local TLM wont touch.

    Who set aside Pope Pius X in the first place? He worked with what he had. Don't twist your mantilla into knots. Such angst! LOL.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,545
    No good ever happened after Pius X.

    Gender theory? After Pius X.
    Semiology? Also after Pius X.
    Cast away these falsehoods and repent.
    Thanked by 2Richard Mix eft94530
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    Pius X made a valiant effort to reform the church, and it was needed. But even he admitted all the errors would reemerge in a far worse form at a later date. That was definitely prophetic.

    A Pius X could not have that kind of effect if he lived today. At his time, popes were obeyed. The later occupants of the office have squandered what authority it once had. Now they would be ignored.

  • Modern scholarship brought us the Jesusbewegung. Modern scholarship brought us Gender Theory, BCE and CE, the renumbering of the psalter, Piltdown Man, Liturgical Antiquarianism and other advances in human endeavors.


    Didn't ancient scholarship bring us astrology, polytheism, justification of slavery, alchemy, Freemasonism, phlogiston, and biological warfare?
    Thanked by 1Spriggo
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,014
    I think there are several reasons why chant is awesome.

    1. It is awesome for the rite.

    2. It is ancient.

    3. It helps us keep faith with the Church of our ancestors, in continuity with them.

    4. It's musicologically important.

    These aren't mutually exclusive reasons; they all support one another.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,545
    Charles,
    My post was meant to be absurd. What I really know about any of this is that Pius X died a long time ago and a lot of bad things have happened and a lot of good things have happened... Before, during, and after the life of the deceased pontiff.

    To link otherwise unrelated things together, like gender theory and chant interpretation, based on their post-Pius-X place in history, is about insane enough for a modern political debate stage.
    Thanked by 2CharlesW Spriggo
  • Ryand,

    My point wasn't to join gender theory to chant interpretation. My purpose was to disparage (following the example of C.S. Lewis) the claim that simply because something is modern, it must be an improvement over that which came before.

    Similarly, merely being old doesn't make something better than being new. Pius XII harshly critiqued the idea that we could "restore" some pristine age of the Church, when altars looked like tables and the Corpus on the Cross bore no signs of the sufferings of Christ.

    I merely think that before we go moving fence posts, we should ask why they were put there in the first place.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,005
    I merely think that before we go moving fence posts, we should ask why they were put there in the first place.


    I don't always find good reasons for those fence posts. Some things develop over time and there are good reasons for them. Some things were a bit nutty from the outset. For example. the sign of the cross. For whatever reason, the Latin west started making the sign of the cross from left to right. A clear aberration and departure from apostolic and early church practice. Even the pope at the time condemned the practice. In looking into it, it seems to me a similar practice to holding hands during the "Our Father" which developed in recent times. An aberration, totally crazy and without justification, but adopted by the people. Such fence posts are in the wrong place.

    One can look at other practices and they make sense. For example, the development of chant into polyphony was an organic process. I would say that fence post was properly placed.

    To link otherwise unrelated things together, like gender theory and chant interpretation, based on their post-Pius-X place in history, is about insane enough for a modern political debate stage.


    Amen, to that.

    Pius XII harshly critiqued the idea that we could "restore" some pristine age of the Church, when altars looked like tables and the Corpus on the Cross bore no signs of the sufferings of Christ.


    The altar was/is a table, among other things, and the corpus has reflected varying theology over time. It is the extreme positions that are the problem, not the rational center that gets lost when those extremes are over-emphasized.
  • ryandryand
    Posts: 1,545
    ...like that stick-figure thing that resembled the whacky inflatable tube man.

    For awhile, I went to both Byzantine and Roman Rite parishes. Left-right or right-left was just how it was done. I knew it was different in different places and I did't really worry about why. But, I refuse to hold hands during the Our Father.

    Chris,

    My purpose was to disparage (following the example of C.S. Lewis) the claim that simply because something is modern, it must be an improvement over that which came before.


    Which I really doubt is what was meant when mentioning "modern scholarship" in this context.
  • johnmann
    Posts: 175
    I walked into a thread about Mortem Tuam in modern notation and ended up in a discussion about gender theory.

    Not complaining. I just didn't expect that.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,574
    ryand: No good ever happened after Pius X. [...] Cast away these falsehoods and repent.

    I think the compact form is ...
    Was it ___ in 1903 Vatican City? Was not! Is outrage!
    Thanked by 1CharlesW