Responsorial psalm: fully congregational, in directum?
  • So what’s the situation with all the various sets of english propers such as Fr. Weber’s?

    Personally, I have absolutely no qualms about singing the PB graduals. Original melodies and faithful translations. Especially if they are licit for use in the ordinariate.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • So what’s the situation with all the various sets of english propers such as Fr. Weber’s?

    I was thinking he had the RP & Gospel acclamation.
  • Relative to the OF, introit, offertory, and communion antiphons fall under the category of a non ritual cantus alius aptus and may be sung as one of several options. Relative to the OF they are not actually ritual texts, which the responsorial psalm or GR gradual are and, therefore, must be approved texts.
    Thanked by 1GerardH
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    Ah, but ! The 1965 Missal was an authorised translation of the 1962 Missal. As such it contains approved translations of all the texts. (Indeed in some places, such as Baltimore, only those texts could be used from ¿1965? until the OF was available in English in 1973, Latin was forbidden.)
    July 1. Precious Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ

    Gradual I John 5, 6 and 7-8 This is he who
    came in water and in blood, Jesus Christ;
    not in the water only, but in the water and
    in the blood. V. There are three that bear
    witness in heaven: the Father, the Word,
    and the Holy Spirit; and these three are
    one. And there are three that bear witness
    on earth: the Spirit, the water, and the
    blood; and these three are one.

    Alleluia, alleluia. V. Ibid., 9 If we receive
    the testimony of men, the testimony of God
    is greater. Alleluia.

    Fourth Sunday in Lent
    Gradual Ps. 121, 1 and 7 I rejoiced because
    they said to me, "We will go up to the house
    of the Lord." V. May peace be within your
    walls, prosperity in your buildings.
    Tract Ps. 124, 1-2 They who trust in the
    Lord are like Mount Sion, which is immovable;
    which forever stands. V. Mountains
    are round about Jerusalem; so the Lord is
    round about his people, both now and
    forever.


    [ADDED] You can download it from https://www.ccwatershed.org/2013/11/15/1965-missale-romanum-online/
  • I’d missed that CCW post and I’m so glad you’ve shared the link. This is an invaluable resource.
  • davido
    Posts: 895
    Jackson, how are the processional propers not ritual but the inter-lectionary propers are?
  • Davido -
    Well, of course the processional propers should be part and parcel of the ritual text relative to the OF, but they aren't (as I regretfully conclude) official texts of the rite. They are only one of several very ambiguously defined options that are, really, extraneous to the OF's ritual text itself. The only parts of the proper, it seems to me, that, relative only to the OF, are integral to the ritual are the Resp Ps or the Latin gradual from the GR. It is noteworthy that the Alleluya verse given in the lectionary rarely if ever corresponds to that of the GR and seems to have been cobbled from whole cloth. I do not offer this as an infallible dicta, but only as my opinion of the realities of the woefully (and deliberately) ambiguous rubrics of the OF. Those responsible for the creation of the OF obviously did not see the processional propers as we know them to be ritually integral, but only as ornamental as the hymn or cantus alius which may be sung instead. As I said above, I would be delighted if someone could prove this to be quite off the mark. It's just what it seems to me. The propers are inviolably integral to the EF, the Ordinariate Use, and every other rite or use in the history of the Western Church except Paul VI's perhaps well intentioned but ill conceived Novus Ordo. Having said all that, I will hasten to add that, with the glaring and notable exception of its deliberately vague, undiscriminating, and toothless rubrics, the NO is not anywhere near as intrinsically awful as many would make it out to be - and the propers, while not integral to the rite, may be inserted into it as legitimately as a hymn or anthem. It's just that the OF, uniquely, does not require them. They are extrinsic to the ritual text.
  • davido
    Posts: 895
    Bruce, are you talking about the P&B gradual translations? Or English gradual translations in general?

    I ask because Ostrowski has graduals in his Lalemant Propers and Fr Nicholls also in his Graduale Parvum.

    I’m sure this has been discussed before, but I can’t remember the details.
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 542
    @a_f_hawkins

    I am sympathetic to the idea of vernacular graduals, but couldn’t one justify the use of the ‘65 translation of the Eucharistic prayers, or collects by the same logic? It seems a bit of a stretch to say that translations approved for a now-defunct rite not tolerated by current law (since it does not conform to either the EF or OF rules) are therefore licit for use in the OF and as equally approved by competent authority as the current Lectionary or Missal.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    @Gamba - I would say as a general rule a newer translation displaces it's predecessor, but absent approved Gradual translations,† these are the most legitimate we have.
    As it happens I live in the Diocese of Liverpool so my archbishop, like all the English hierarchy, has an indult to permit occasional use of the 1967 Missal; not that anyone has asked since JPII granted access to the 1962.
    † ICEL published an approved translation of the GS antiphons and refrains in 1968.
  • Here's my opinion on this: the intentions of the Ordinary Form's compilers clearly were to have the RP and GP as the mandatory chants, and had the Gradual/Alleluia & Alleluia/Tract as second-hand options. The GIRM makes it clear the chants of the Lectionnary are the N°1 option.

    On the other hand, these options do exist. If they are chosen, they are to be sung according to the Graduale Romanum. Does this forbid the use of a vernacular Gradual or Alleluia? I would say no, for two reasons:
    1) No one would say it is illicit to sing the Gradual or Alleluia or any other chant of the Graduale Romanum for that matter, in a setting, other than the RG; for instance, no one would blame a parish which would choose to sing Cesar Frank's "Dextera Domini" at the Easter Vigil or Duruflé's "Ubi Caritas" on Maundy Thursday, despite the fact both of these are polyphony rather than chant.
    2) The readings have to be taken from a very precise source, the Lectionarium Romanum. But obviously, they can be read in the vernacular, provided that their translation has been approved by the local Bishop or the local Bishop conference.

    So I would say that the letter of the liturgical books allow to sing all the chants of the RG in the vernacular (despite it being contrary to the intention of the legislators), provided that the translation has been duely approved.

    What do you think?
  • I find your #1 argument rather compelling; if it is licit for us to take the Latin text and set it in a motet, or to sing a translation of that text as set by any composer, then why on earth would it be illicit to sing a direct translation of the propers themselves? Especially when it is clearly preferable to sing the text or a translation of the proper to any other substitution such as a completely non-related hymn.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • davido
    Posts: 895
    I feel like #1 is the sort of reasoning needed to reclaim Catholic heritage. Also:
    - approval of vernacular texts is to affirm they are a correct translation (correctly carry the deposit of faith) not because their approval somehow makes them better words.
    - the only reason we don’t have official translations of the graduals and alleluias is because the “reformers” were trying to suppress our Catholic heritage!

    I say it’s high time we reclaim our heritage!
    The responsorial psalm as a genre sucks:
    - Nobody can recall the respond from memory; responds are either too long or two short; the verses selected are arbitrary and chop up the psalm in no discernible fashion; the verses are random assortments of lines (2, 3,4,5,6); the responds either have no tie-in to the psalm or are repeated in the verses in a different translation!; in 50 years no one has found a musical form for the psalm that feels natural; no parish is equipped to handle the liturgical guidelines for presenting the psalm (a separate psalmist, etc).
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • ...provided that their translation has been approved by the local bishop or the local biship congerence.
    This is the crux of the matter. The gradual (in approved Latin of the GR) or the Resp Ps are integral to the ritual text and must be approved words. Not so with Introit, Offertory, ad Communion, which, as it seems to me, are extraneous to the ritual text and, as just other cantus alius options like hymns or anthems, do not have to be approved texts. So, one can sing Int., Off., or Communion to any text, Latin or English, which has not been 'approved'. Not so with Latin gradual or Resp Ps, which, as they are conceived of as integral to the ritual text, must be in the approved Latin, or in the English of the official ritual text. I see not other way of interpreting this situation, but would be delighted if someone could demolish my argument. The absurd problem in all of this is the Roman fetish for legalism and legislation, which puts all it touches in shackles. This is very strange to this Ordinariate Catholic. Anglicans don't suffer under such picky-picky rules about what translations can and cannot be used for the propers and other music which is not integral to the ritual text. Of course, this leads to a certain (and often regrettable) laxity in Anglicandom, which being the mirror image of fetishistic legalism in the Roman Church, can be misused and abused. How do we find a (if I may say so) via media in all this? Or, is there one? It is irresponsible and thoughtless that our bishops have not seen fit to provide approved translations for the propers - all five of them - and requiring them, said or sung, at every mass, thus making them (as they should be) integral to the rite. The current 'entrance' and 'comunion antiphons' in the missal should be discarded altogether. It is foolishness that some now are setting these 'antiphons' to music and calling them 'propers'. They aren't, and this is not only a deceit but bald disobedience to the plain reading of the relevant rubrics. In the Ordinariate Use all the propers - all five of them - are integral to our rite, and when not sung are said by the celebrant. They may not be omitted!
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    SC sets out a number of desiderata
    1/ Preservation of the authentic traditional corpus of Gregorian Chant, and completion of the the typical (critical) editions SC§117.
    2/ A new edition of simpler authentic melodies. SC§117.
    3/ Prime, but not exclusive, place to be given to Gregorian chant. Other kinds of sacred music are permitted. SC§116.
    4/ "The voices of the faithful to ring out" SC§118.
    5/ Extending use of the mother tongue (without abandoning Latin) to some readings, directives, prayers, and chants SC§36.
    6/ "The treasures of the bible are to be opened up more lavishly" SC§51
    7/ Also somewhere VII called for the publishing of a more critical edition of the scripture in Latin (or supported an existing project).

    In relation to #1 & #7 note that the older antiphons are drawn from versions of scripture older than the Vulgate, and the phraseology can be different. Thus my first point is that SC seeks to conserve the ancient Gradual texts, but the Lectionary and the Missal in general do not, they are based on the Nova Vulgata. The Solesmes revisers for the current Ordo Cantus Missae were assiduous in clearing out of the Gradual Neo-gregorian compositions and finding or moving authentic antiphons to fill the gaps. On the other hand the Missal antiphons will be preferentially based on the Nova Vulgata, and include texts which have not been found in the Gregorian corpus. The last thing we need is people composing Neo-gregorian melodies for the new Latin antiphons, so it is banned.
    However, there was not intended to be a ban on the vernacular, and no ban on the use of either the Missal texts or the Gradual texts to produce vernacular antiphons. Bugnini points out on p.891 of Reform that vernacular song is not the responsibity of the Roman authorities, and says "The entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal* were intended to be recited, not sung, and to inspire the creation of suitable songs in the vernacular"
    * i.e. the originals, in Latin
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    MJO I don't completely blame the Roman authorities, much of this attitude can be traced to Napoleon. I didn't really take root in Rome for another 50 years. And then it is tempered by an Italian/Roman attitude that the law sets out a goal or ideal, not that we neccessarily expect to achieve it. In fact Italians blame this attitude on the Anglo-saxons.
    I don't understand your quotation though, which surely refers to the Entrance etc.. c.f. GIRM§48.
    The words allius cantus never AFAIK occur in a legislative text without the qualifier , thus from GIRM1969
    sive alius cantus, actioni sacra;, diei vel temporis indoli congruus, cuius textus a Conferentia Episcopali sit approbatus.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • How interesting, Mr Hawkins!
    Just how are Napoleon and the Anglo-Saxons complicit in the Roman tendency for endless legislation and codifying of everything they can get their hands on. This, in my analysis, is a trait that the Church inherited from the Romans themselves. But - how do Napoleon and the Anglo-Saxons enter into this picture?
  • I’ll be frank:
    I consider many imprimaturs to be exceedingly dubious. Something authorized two centuries ago is one thing, but anything post-conciliar needs scrutinizing, even when it is “approved”. We all know the inverse is too as well: that various aspects of once-common liturgical life were either expressly suppressed or were deliberately not endorsed after the council to discourage their use for demonic reasons even though they were, and still are, perfectly legitimate.

    I have a prayer book that has a nihil obstat and imprimatur that honest to God contains prayers to Egyptian Pharaohs, a muslim litany to the many names of God (including overtly heretical ones), Buddhist reformers and many more. It’s an absolute scandal and this book is still published by the “Catholic book publishing Corp.”
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    MJO I disclaim expertise, but the Church had no Code of Canon Law until 1917. There were around 10,000 norms, not all reconcilable with each other. This had been the general European situation up to the Napoleonic Wars. Napoleon organized the first mass Citizen Army, and devised a clear military Code to govern it. And then imposed a similar "Code Napoleon" on the many countries he conquered. The militarisation which was neccessary around Europe to throw off that French Empire meant that most countries saw it as desireable to retain the Code Napoleon. Or in the case of Italy to impose it once the country was unified. So after the Papal states were overthrown the vast majority of prelates were living under an understanding of Law which can be caricatured as a nice simple military rule " Everything not permitted is forbidden; everything permitted is compulsory". As with military regulations it governs every aspect of life. It only works if you take a non-rigourous attitude to it. Now we Anglo-saxons have a Common Law tradition and a (still) relatively small body of Statute Law, which (still) allows us to take statute law rigourously, when we import that attitude to Europe we are regarded as peculiar. (of course it varies among peoples, Germans are very much more rigourous than Italians).
    [Sorry folk, we seem to have strayed off topic]
  • davido
    Posts: 895
    Thank you Hawkins, but I do think your analysis is very pertinent. It’s ludicrous and legalistic to say that we must use a vernacular responsorial psalm that is 50 years old because it has an official translation, but not use a 1500+ year old gradual because it has no “official” vernacular translation, especially when we are allowed to sing any old schlock for the rest of the mass. Our very litigious society values the rulings of the living authority, rather than the common, ancient tradition of our fathers, even when the living authority is in conflict with the tradition.

    The message of the gradual, hallowed by centuries of use, has been translated accurately several times as outlined above. It’s not like we want to make up something new and “sing a new church into being.”

    Chesterton, and democracy of the dead and all that.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    [ MUCH LATER] I should not have posted this about an hour an a half after bed-time [ It needs completely recasting, after reading the comment above properly]
    @davido I don't know where I said that. MJO complained that there is no obvious approved translation of the Gradual. * (I agree) I suggested that there was one approved in 1965. I haven't said anything here about the RP since a couple of days ago to support
    @Elmar in his joust with the parish council.

    In fact while I would not go as far as to say "The responsorial psalm as a genre sucks:" I was expecting eventually get round to a more nuanced comment on the deficiencies.

    * Did ICEL submit one in about 1998 to which SCDWDS never deigned to reply? >NO that's just misleading references to the 1998 Sacramentary
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • Eschewing the above choice of words describing the Resp Ps, I will agree that nearly all musical settings of it are utter and highly insulting rubbish. Set to good music, it is not at all objectionable and can be quite beautiful as musical form and spiritual exercise. I have written and performed settings of it with chant responsorries for the people and mildly polyphonic verses for choir, as well as composed chant settings with simple chant responsories for the people and melismatic verses of varying richness, and with distinctive melodies for each verse, for the cantor - thus adopting a Gregorian form. Both of these have been very positively received, even by priests, who don't ordinarily show that much appreciation of music.

    I have always seen the Resp Ps, as a form, as a restoration of the responsorial psalmody (a form peculiar to the Roman Church) of which the uniquely Roman gradual seems to me to be a truncated remnant. As the gradual as we know it consists of a responsory and one verse, it seems apparent that it is quite possibly the remnant of responsorial psalmody.

    All that is not to suggest that the gradual itself is inferior or that the Resp Ps should take precedence over it, quite the very opposite. It is only to assert that the resp ps, like the OF itself is not inherently awful - only the music and liturgical praxis to which they are near universally subject are indescribably awful.

  • For one example of how the Resp Ps can be beautifully done google midnight mass at buckfast abbey youtube This is a sort of modern choral treatment, but the same can be done with chant (each verse having its own melody), or with polyphonic or choral verses. The Alleluia and Verse is the Gregorian one proper to the mass. The vestments are a wonder to behold - even down to the appareled amices - the choir's Charpentier, Praetorius, and Palestrina are excellent, the plainsong done very nicely - even by the people - and the organ is really good. The only disappointing thing is the absence of sung dialogue and collects - still, the NO liturgy is celebrated with great dignity and reverence. The striking surplices with red stripes around their skirts and sleeve cuffs would seem to be peculiar to Buckfast Abbey. Also, and importantly, one will notice the utter absence of song leaders, cantors, arm flailers, pirouettists, and announcers. Not a single non ritual word. If only the dialogue, collects, lectionary, and prayers of the faithful had been sung!
  • According to my analysis, if a collection of vernacular Graduals, Alleluias & Tracts were to be approved by the local Bishop or by a Bishop's Conference, it would be fully licit to use it.

    For one example of how the Resp Ps can be beautifully done google midnight mass at buckfast abbey youtube This is a sort of modern choral treatment, but the same can be done with chant (each verse having its own melody), or with polyphonic or choral verses. The Alleluia and Verse is the Gregorian one proper to the mass. The vestments are a wonder to behold - even down to the appareled amices - the choir's Charpentier and Palestrina are excellent, the plainsong done very nicely - even by the people - and the organ is really good. The only disappointing thing is the absence of sung dialogue and collects - still, the NO liturgy is celebrated with great dignity and reverence. The striking surplices with red stripes around their skirts and sleeve cuffs would seem to be peculiar to Buckfast Abbey.

    Very beautiful indeed! The OF and Responsorial psalm done right!

    I have always seen the Resp Ps, as a form, as a restoration of the responsorial psalmody (a form peculiar to the Roman Church) of which the uniquely Roman gradual seems to me to be a truncated remnant. As the gradual as we know it consists of a responsory and one verse, it seems apparent that it is quite possibly the remnant of responsorial psalmody.

    I have some doubts about that theory, but that does not make the RP aweful per se.
  • Jehan -
    Well, I must admit that my tentative analysis about the gradual versus resp ps relationship is lacking proof. I have seen nothing like it in the scholarly literature. Still it is quite worthy of note that having one responsory and one verse makes the gradual a responsorial form. Therefore an extended responsorial form is not a far fetched invention. With a simple chant responsory for the people and more elaborate verses for the cantor (different for each verse) it becomes quite like the composers of our chant repertory would have approached a responsorial psalm - it becomes 'Gregorian' in nature - as befits it it has taken on a Gregorian mantle that hearkens to early chant forms.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 162
    MJO - I think there is some support in the scholarly literature (unless I am misreading it). See Joseph Jungmann's The Mass of the Roman Rite and the section on "The Intervenient Chants" in Volume 1 beginning on page 421 (in the recent reprint by Christian Classics).
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Do people still treat Fr. Jungmann's analysis as scholarly and informative?
  • They do, and with good reason, though some of his works are a bit old and need to be updated.
    Thanked by 1toddevoss
  • As for the Gradual, it is indeed a responsorial chant. It is to be lamented that in so many churches where the Gradual is sung, the responsory is sung only once, before the verse, when it should be sung both before and after the verse.

    My choirmaster even told me Amalarius had the Gradual sung the following way:
    - the cantor sings the gradual;
    - the schola sings the gradual;
    - the cantor sings the gradual-verse;
    - the schola sings the gradual;
    - the cantor sings the first half of the gradual (for instance, "Haec dies quam fecit Dominus, …")
    - the schola finishes the gradual ("… exultemus et laetemur in ea").

    And this is the very way of singing the gradual in the Russian Orthodox Church (and in those brave Russian Orthodox parishes around the world which are in full communion with the Holy See).
  • Well, I realized today that we'd all overlooked another resource as far as official translations of the gradual are concerned: "The Gregorian Missal for Sundays and Solemnities" published by Solesmes in 2012. It has all the authentic gregorian propers as shifted for the N.O. calendar, with english translations sourced from ICEL.

    "Concordat cum originalibus approbatis; imprimatur: Die 3 iunii 2012, †Yves Le Saux, Cenomanensis episcopus."
  • Unfortunately, the foreword of this book reads as follows:

    The notated Gregorian chant pieces proper to each Mass, are generally followed by our own translation, printed across the full width of the page. Its only function is to facilitate comprehension of the sung Latin text, and it is in no way intended for use in the liturgy.
  • Crap. You're right.
  • Although lets be clear: it's a bit disingenuous to say "not intended to be used in the liturgy" whilst printing them in a book intended for use in the liturgy... Strikes me as some good old fashioned lawyer double speak that is "technically" correct but damaging nevertheless.
  • I don't see it as disingenuous. A translation that is intended specifically to help the singers comprehend the text is very different in style than a singable translation, and Solesmes doesn't want to be seen as encouraging use of a text that isn't officially approved for use.
  • I have read on ccwatershed there was once a project of Invitatory-based Responsorial psalms. Is it still a thing?
  • The Responsorial psalm of this Mass is beautiful to hear (from 9:22): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jzX8pIl1wE4&t=114s
    Thanked by 1sdtalley3
  • Allowing as how we are still in the Christmas cycle which ends on Presentation, I am still listening to Christmas music.
    I have stumbled across some quite nice Responsorial Psalms at midnight Christmas masses at various European cathedrals. The most beautiful of them all has been that of the mass at Buckfast Abbey.
    One of the more interesting ones was midnight mass at Cologne cathedral.
    A beautiful pontifical mass in which the psalm was replaced wholly by a German chorale interspersed with responsories.
    The Alleluya and Verse likewise featured a four-fold Alleluya which was sung between stanzas of In dulci jubilo. All this was excellently done but I wonder at the substitution of chorales for ritual verses.
    I believe that it is not licit to substitute anything at all for the approved ritual texts of the resp. ps. and the alleluya verse. So how do they do this?
    All of these NO masses which I have viewed, both in England and on the continent were very reverently carried out with flawless ritual and no liturgical abuses, no cantors, no announcers, no 'song leaders', no arm flailers or pirouetists.
    Quite different from our fare here in the US.
    We are often told that it's worse in Europe, but I have seen nothing at all bad in the masses that I have viewed.
    The only disappointment has been that the lesson and epistle are not normally sung (thought the gospel is), nor the prayers of the faithful - and, no propers.
    There is something quite nice and pleasing about hearing masses in well spoken, immaculate German.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,777
    The Cologne Midnight Mass in 2020 had "Engeln auf den Feldern singen" in loco Gloria in excelsis, a Gradual Es ist ein Ros' and a straightforward 4-fold Alleluja. A brass quintet is in attendance; counterintuitive as it seems, more aerosols are safely collected in a spit valve than would be exhaled by a masked string player.
    2019 with the full church has a Shepherd's Mass in C by Ignaz Reimann, the above described Gradual "Lobt Gott ihr Christen" and Alleluja In dulci Jubilo, unchanged from 2018. (I rather prefer it to the usual thin gruel.)
  • It has been my experience that the OF celebrated in Germany commonly replaces ritual texts (even those of the ordinaries!) with chorales. Last I was there, I attended the OF at the Nuernberger Frauenkirche. The Gloria was replaced with a chorale, as was the Credo (!!!). And no, MJO, I don't think it is licit in the least. It doesn't seem to stop anyone though.
  • Trenton,

    I have asked in these fora before whether, given the nature of the OF, anything can be declared actually illicit. I'll renew that question here.

    Given the frequency of "options" and "these or other similar words" in the rubrics of the Ordo Missae itself and in its implementing document, the IGRM, isn't there supposed to be adequate suppleness to rule "in" nearly anything a local community wishes to do, except invalidate the sacrament?

    In fairness, I don't think the Gloria and Credo should be replaced by a German chorale, and I'm not advocating that what you experienced should become the norm, in Germany or anywhere, but I don't see how it is legally possible to restrict such practices.
    Thanked by 1Elmar
  • GIRM # 53:

    "The Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) is a most ancient and venerable
    hymn by which the Church, gathered in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God
    the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other. It is
    intoned by the Priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir; but it is sung either
    by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone.
    If not sung, it is to be recited either by everybody together or by two choirs responding
    one to the other.
    It is sung or said on Sundays outside Advent and Lent, and also on Solemnities and
    Feasts, and at particular celebrations of a more solemn character"
  • Chris,
    I've wondered about this too. I once spoke to a priest about some abuses at the spanish masses at that parish (sorry, Masses in Spanish) as it is the typical terrible mariachi band music. Considering the style and instruments that were supposedly banned by T.L.S., I wondered why there wasn't more pressure for change. I posited the idea that what they were doing was actually illicit but he challenged me that whilst certainly unpreferable, they weren't technically doing anything "illegal" in the strict sense.

    This leads to the obvious question: what legislation or documents actually carry force/rule of law? People reference TLS but that apparently is outmoded or doesn't carry the rule of law (so they say). There's GIRM but it doesn't deal adequately with these more practical questions. You have various pastoral letters like the excellent one out of portland, but those aren't universally binding... S.C. also doesn't adequately deal with many of the more practical questions. Where does that leave us if not T.L.S.?
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    Texts and tunes are very different matters. There is no legitimate opportunity, AFAIK, for introducing unapproved prayers into the OF, or unapproved substitutes for the propers. There is the opportunity for the bishop to approve texts that are not in the Missal, Lectionary, Gradual, ... And there is opportunity for the celebrant to introduce commentary, notably with the homily, as was mandated by the Council of Trent.
    Since VII approved of some measure of adaptation of the liturgy to different places and peoples, it is impossible to provide universal stylistic rules on music. If I had the writing of them I would exclude the Coronation Mass (at least anywhere except Vienna Cathedral) but not everyone here would agree!.
  • Trenton,

    I grant you that the text seems explicit enough to prevent the behavior in question, but one must consider that there are adaptations of the Ordo itself, varying by country. "In the dioceses of the United States of America......" probably has equivalents in other countries.
  • More and more every day I ask myself why I don't just gleefully flee to the FSSP or Ordinariate...
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    CGZ
    The Vatican website does not have the German translation. It is possible that it has not yet been agreed, the conference was objecting to the (mis)translation of pro multis. The French and Italians both got their way on this and their translations are given below, along with Swahili which has the same meaning. Absent a new translation the 1975 text is still in force AFAIK and it does not have that sentence, which would make the substitution currently licit in German.

    On ne peut jamais remplacer le texte de cette hymne par un autre.

    Il testo di questo inno non può essere sostituito con un altro.

    Maneno ya utenzi huu hayawezi kubadilishwa na matini nyingine.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 503
    OF celebrated in Germany commonly replaces ritual texts (even those of the ordinaries!) with chorales [...] The Gloria was replaced with a chorale, as was the Credo (!!!)
    In fairness, I don't think the Gloria and Credo should be replaced by a German chorale, and I'm not advocating that what you experienced should become the norm, in Germany or anywhere
    I'm not en expert in these matters but didn't know any different in my youth.
    As far as I know, it is an old phenomenon picked up and promoted by the lityrgical movement, and got an indult from the Holy See in 1943. ('Betsingmesse' and 'Deutsches Hochamt'). Using litteral translations of the Mass text was even explicitly forbidden!
    Incidentally the singing of a typical German Gloria and Credo paraphrase lasts about as long as swiftly saying the full Latin text.
  • Elmar
    Posts: 503
    The Vatican website does not have the German translation. It is possible that it has not yet been agreed...
    Exactly. By the end of BXVI's pontificate the German bishops' conference wanted to do him a favor and have the latest revision of the revision accepted by the Holy See (which would probably have happened). The editors of the new (delayed) 'Gotteslob' were so confident that this was a 'go' that they included some eucharistic prayers in the new translation with pro multis="für viele".

    The Austrian bishops however didn't agree, and many German bishops shared their objections, so in fall 2014 (?) they decided to not submit to Rome (for Germany alone) and to resolve these questions first.
    Probably the final decision won't be taken without pressure from pope Benedict XVII.
  • More and more every day I ask myself why I don't just gleefully flee to the FSSP or Ordinariate...


    The strugglebus is real, and I'm riding on it too. I have good days and bad days. Sometimes I think my laboring in the vineyard is worth it; "lighting a candle, rather than cursing the darkness, etc." and other days it feels very much in vain and I wish to wash my hands of it.
    Thanked by 2trentonjconn Elmar
  • What an accurate summation of my own feelings as well. Additionally, the risk of hard work being swept aside with a boss change is much higher than it would be in an EF or Ordinariate parish.