Sing the New Mass Text NOW!
  • Suddenly struck me last night that since there is no approved text to be sung at Mass this would extend to the ordinary and, as we have seen from the altered ordinary texts of the current text published and used so widely it would make more sense to use the new texts now....

    No one has been warned, chastised or prevented from using the altered, trophed texts.

    So, though the use of the new texts is not permitted spoken at the there any legal reason they cannot be sung now?

    Would that not seem to be more appropriate than ones being sung now, since these at least have full approval to be spoken and implemented for the entire English-speaking Church on a date that is set not for reason that profits the people...who are now being denied a translation that is more accurate than what is in that businesses that profit from the Church may get in gear and make money.

    Don't tell me that this of going against the Church. The biggest person 'going against the church' today is Benedict XVI in many people's minds.

    Let the games begin.
  • Well, except that it isn't allowed. You make the point that the trophed texts aren't allowed either. Still, it strikes me that a bit of patience could be a good thing here.
  • ≥•≤, patience is definitely the way to go. I was working with an African priest, and suggested that since he was on loan from one of the diocese using that new text under permission, we could do it at Masses he said. He demurred, quite reasonably. But it was fun making the suggestion.

    But...why is there no approval/restriction on texts sung at Mass...and there is a restriction place on this one which is definitely not heretical? Why are texts that are considered to be heretical sung without any restriction?

    Where do the major publishers get the power and freedom to publish what they want rather than what is healthy for the church?

    And, more importantly, exactly where and what are the restrictions about what texts may NOT be sung at Mass?
  • Regarding the publishers, I think there are a couple of considerations. For one thing, many things that are considered "less than the ideal" were published many years ago (like the 70s and 80s) when the liturgical landscape was more relaxed. Sticking to exact texts, not using psalm paraphrases, etc... just weren't given the importance they are now. Another consideration is that the publishers are not all just "Catholic" publishers. OCP and GIA both publish materials for other faiths. While OCPs is more subtle, GIA even publishes hymnals and psalters for other denominations. In other words, we're not their only customers. Is it really their fault that Catholics buy music not intended for use in Catholic liturgy?

    For a Catholic musician, it is certainly not the ideal to use Shepard Me, O God as the Psalm during the Liturgy of the Word. For a Lutheran, it's really not a problem. I've read in a current liturgical book from in England, "any version of the psalter that has not been specifically disapproved may be used for the chanting of the psalms. At this point, no version has been disallowed." Unless a publisher presented their catalog as being "100% appropriate for Catholic liturgy," I don't think they are considering the "health" of the church, nor should they be obliged to.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,046
    Noel writes:

    there is no approved text to be sung at Mass

    I'm under the conventional impression that the Mass Ordinary is supposed to be sung, if it is sung, according to the approved (lame-duck) ICEL text. Can Noel clarify what he means by saying "there is no approved text to be sung at Mass"?
  • This is the strangeness of it all.

    We are told that there is no approved translation for singing at Mass.

    But there is the ICEL translation of the Ordinary.

    So it appears that there is a double standard. We have to sing the ICEL text but anything else we sing at Mass can be any old translation that we want to sing. And does not even have to come from scripture or have any theological standing.
  • I intend to comment on this, and it will have a bearing on the other thread about the silent OF Canon, and our singing through it. Unfortunately, I'm out of time for this evening. I will put my thoughts together some more, and post tomorrow. It pertains to my recent visit to the UK, and what I heard during Masses over there, both this time and 30 years ago. Basically, even with ICEL, we do NOT do things the same throughout the Anglophone world - as much as the GIRM we're attempting to quote and follow (i.e. the USA version) seems to indicate some sort of "universality".
  • Steve, I think it is against the policy of the forum for people to take time, think things over and then post. But I am sure that we can make an exception on this occasion.

    From what I have seen from watching youtube masses in other languages around the world, I am interested in what you have to say....
  • Noel, all I read was the topic line, and it occurred to me to ask...

    Are you one of THOSE cantors? I mean, getting in our faces and FORCING us to sing and all?

    Sorry, couldn't resist. Long day, too many notes. And losing one of my best choristers to a Florida move.
  • this is a good point. what obligation is there to follow the Mass text, when every major cathedral and church in america uses a song that does not follow the approved text? (Mass of Cremation)
  • Not just the Mass text, but also with hymns. How do churches get away with doing songs like "Let There Be Peace on Earth" in place of the Communion antiphon?
  • It's enough to make ya want to bring back the St. Gregory Black List, I tell ya...
    If the Universal Church went back to using a universal language, we could have a universal liturgy. It's probably more important to have a consistent worship experience than to have a consistent dining experience at McDonald's, but the Vatican doesn't pull franchises (well, the bishop CLOSES franchises for lack of business) ...indeed, the Church has consistently outsourced its enforcement arm. The State had it for awhile, but the rack and the stake gave the Church bad press, so they switched the contract to God.

    As a convert-in-philosophy (not yet received into the church), it's all very confusing. I go to a Mass, the jingle starts, but it's not the same jingle as in the missalette, sometimes not even quite the same words, so I have to wait for it to come around a couple times to sing it. If I weren't expected to sing it, this wouldn't be a problem, but I am, and it's nasty.

    Going back to Noel's original point, my understanding is that there IS an approved text for the Ordinary, and the new one ain't it yet. That there is no approved text for the Proper (or what passes for the Proper in OF) is a red herring, as is the lack of enforcement. Am I wrong? If we say, "IN PRACTICE, there is no approved Mass text" and use the new one, how are we in principle any different than Marty Haugen?
  • On my recent trip to the UK (both Scotland and England) I experienced some very beautiful Masses. I was especially struck with the Feast of the Assumption at St. Mary’s Cathedral in Edinburgh. (Yes, the Catholic one. I had rung bells at the Anglican one the previous weekend.) What the choir sang was an epiphany to me – Harold Darke’s Communion Setting in F. Yes, the text was the Anglican Rite I, traditional text. And this seems to be done, without any problem, at various parishes throughout Britain. I asked the Pastor during the reception after Mass (it was Cardinal O’Brien’s Silver Jubilee as Archbishop!) about the use of that translation. His answer was that, when the choir performs polyphony, they do not tamper with the given text. He also said that, when the congregation joins in singing/saying the Ordinary, they do use the ICEL text. He also admitted that there is no “rule” allowing this, but that it is simply their local tradition. It occurs to me that this is the basic difference between common practice in Britain and here in the USA – we followed the dictates of the brand new “liturgists” early on, and gave over the singing of the Ordinary to the congregation, even to the extreme of disbanding choirs! We were not even allowed to keep the Latin in most places! The rule of American Bishops and ICEL was, indeed, absolute!

    BTW, the congregation did join in on chanting Credo I (not the simpler Credo III we all have become more familiar with), and it seemed quite “ordinary” to them – including the young lady (college student) who attended the Mass with me. This was with only the Latin text printed in the worship aid, and with organ accompaniment. Clearly our brethren across the pond have managed to keep many traditions that we jettisoned!

    I will also point out that, here in the USA, the Anglican Rite I text IS used regularly in Anglican Use parishes. So one should be able to argue that the text is “authorized”, just as the text used before ICEL finished their work in 1974 was authorized. I think the fact that American congregations almost universally sing/say the part of the Ordinary is a primary factor in no one being allowed the latitude of using other previously, equally authorized translations.

    My logical extrapolation of this concept is that, if only the choir were “performing” the new text, and the congregation was NOT being invited to join in, it might be allowable. Our problem is basically that choirs are not allowed to “perform” anything!
  • Steve, Darke in F is repertoire at my Anglo-Catholic parish. And you've hit the nail on the head. If anyone and everyone can sing, why can't anyone offer the Sacrifice of the Mass?
  • Maureen
    Posts: 671
    Dude. They don't put chrism on your throat.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,046
    Well, this much seems reasonable: if you get your hands on a copy of the new Mass translation -- in particular its entrance and communion antiphons -- it would be perfectly legal to sing them in the parts of the Mass that allow "another suitable song". So you could start singing them at the entrance, at communion, or at the offertory.

    Is that what Noel was talking about?
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,686
    Bachlover2 wrote:
    "when every major cathedral and church in america uses a song that does not follow the approved text? (Mass of Cremation)"

    Umm... in 2010? Really? I doubt that fact, and you're being Tucker-like in your overstating of your case. "Many Cathedrals and Churches" would have been a much better way of phrasing it. When you overstate your case, you make your case look not-worth-talking-about.
  • matthewj,

    You have to support your argument. I have serious doubt that Bachlover2 is wrong, unfortunately.

    Prior to the naming of the non-music-reading music director of the cathedral and diocese of knoxville, that WAS the official diocesan mass setting. Probably still is, though the new director of music and her committee have been silent so far.

    It is NOT known as the Mass of Cremation because it is rarely heard.

    You need to cite at least one, but better two or more, cathedrals where in recent time (over the last 5 years) it has not been sung.
  • My question is this:

    Where is the instruction that we must sing, sing, the new translation at Mass.

    There are, up to now, no specific instructions as to what translations must be sung at Mass as far as Propers.

    Is there such an instruction for the new ordinary in writing?

    [but of course, it may be sung at Mass, but not in place of the current setting until 2011]
  • Noel:

    I am not following you.

    Are you asking if it will still be licit to sing the present translation after the start of Advent 2011? (Other doubtful interpretations: whether the new translation must only be recited, whether sung Masses must be in Latin.)

    By Propers, you mean the Major Propers? I assume you know there are no approved translation of the Minor Propers (except for that of the Simplex).
  • Is there, anywhere, anything in writing that says that the only the new translation music be sung at Mass, replacing all others, as of Advent 2010? is my understanding that there is NO approved text for the propers...but now I recall that there IS said to be one for the Simplex.

    Why is it not in use? For BFW, for it a "translation" that is merely that and not intended to be sung?
  • By Flowing Waters sets the (approved, ICEL) English translation of the Graduale Simplex to music.
  • "mandated"

    Chironomo has written:

    And this is precisely why the situation of the ICEL Chants is becoming more of an issue as we move towards the implementation of the New Translation in November 2011. At this point, the ICEL Chants are the only setting of the Ordinary yet to be approved for liturgical use. Publishers are REQUIRED to include the ICEL Chant settings as the normative setting in all published liturgical books, hymnals, guides or Missals intended for liturgical use. In both permanent and renewable hymnals or songbooks, where there are settings of the Orinary included with an Order of Mass, the ICEL Chant settings MUST be included as the setting within the Order of Mass. This much has already been mandated.

    The entire article, a must read:
  • Many of us on this thread are laboring under a misunderstanding. The texts of the Ordinary of the Mass are ICET.

    English Language Liturgical Consultation
    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    The English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC) is a group of national associations of ecumenical liturgists in the English-speaking world. Their work has been concerned with developing and promoting common liturgical texts in English and sharing a common lectionary wherever possible. It is the successor body to the International Consultation on English Texts (ICET).

    ICET was formed in 1969 and, after circulating drafts in 1971, 1972, and 1973. completed its work in 1975 by publishing, in the booklet Prayers We Have in Common, its proposed English versions of liturgical texts that included the Apostles' Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Athanasian Creed, and the Lord's Prayer. These texts were widely adopted by English-speaking Christians, with the exception of the Our Father, for which, in most countries, a traditional text was kept. The other three texts were accepted in the official 1975 English translation of the Roman Missal.[1] In the United States the English translation of the Roman Missal was printed before the definitive 1975 ICEL text of the Nicene Creed was ready and therefore has in its place the 1973 draft. This differs in a few points from the final text, perhaps most notably in speaking of Christ becoming man after mentioning his birth, while the 1975 text does so after mentioning instead his incarnation (conception).[2]

    ELLC, in turn, published in 1988 Praying Together, with revisions of the ICET texts. These have been accepted by many Churches - for instance, the Presbyterian Church (USA) in 1998, the Methodist Church of Great Britain in 1999 and the Anglican Church of Ireland in 2002 - but many of them introduced modifications, as can be seen in A Survey of Use and Variation.
  • Thank you, Paul. I'm not laboring, I'm struggling!

    This adds a new dimension.
  • matthewjmatthewj
    Posts: 2,686
    "You have to support your argument. I have serious doubt that Bachlover2 is wrong, unfortunately."

    St. Joseph Cathedral in Columbus, Ohio ( I seriously doubt it's the only one. The Director of Music has told other music directors through the Diocese that this text is wrong (the Lamb of God) and opposes its use.

    I suppose as for the rest, it would depend on what Bachlover2 means by "major" Cathedrals and Churches.
  • In writing? He/She has committed him/or/herself to this?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,046
    Here's one counterexample for Bachlover2:

    I occasionally sing at special events at the Cathedral in Boston, and they never include the Mass of Destruction. Usually the music director takes a setting from Proulx.