Yes, the Gregorian Missal indicates: "The English translation of the prayers, the eucharistic prayers, prefaces and other texts from the Order of the Mass from the Roman Missal c 1973, International Committee on English in the Liturgy Inc, All rights reserved."

Does this mean the prayers as in the Introit...?

Speaking of Gregorian Missal Translations, is there any word on when a new version will be coming out with the new translation? The PDF I have shows the old 1970s ICEL translations.

There's nothing wrong in singing the words of Christ. The sung propers being prayer, it "takes its unity from the heart of Christ, for our Redeemer desired 'that the life he had entered upon in his mortal body with supplications and with his sacrifice should continue without interruption through the ages in his Mystical Body, which is the Church.' Because of this, the prayer of the Church is at the same time 'the very prayer that Christ himself, together with his Body, addresses to the Father.' [...] Therefore, we must recognize our own voices echoing in Christ, his voice echoing in us." (Paul VI, Apostolic Constitution Laudis canticum, 1 November 1970)

From the Gregorian Missal introduction:

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 int ended for use in the Liturgy.

I might gently remind all threadfollowers here that Jeffrey T. has reminded us, ad nauseam, that there are no official translations of the propers — and that it's probably best that way.

I would say so, yes. For more, I'd recommend "Graduale or Missale" by Christopher Tietze, which I just referenced in another thread, in the Winter 2006 issue of Sacred Music.

P.S. I have always appreciated Tietze's article. I just prefer to approach the topic in obedience to the Church and objectivity rather than out of any specific hope for one or the other to ultimately prevail.

Mia,

I don't think it has anything to do with that. We're just commenting on the fact that SEP uses the Solesmes translation of the chanted Latin propers in the Graduale vs. the English (or Latin) propers found in the Roman Missal - which sometimes are different texts.

I suspect it was because of this difference that Solesmes put the note in the Gregorian Missal that the translations were "in no way inteded for use in the Liturgy."

If not using the Gregorian Latin propers, there is no specific legislaion - and some room for opinion - as to which text to use for the propers.

I don't think it has anything to do with the quality of the English.

I see your point, but I guess "In no way intended" almost sounds like a "shouldn't" to me.

When I was younger, my parents often told me to stop doing something like jumping on a bed because it wasn't made for that.... :)

Well said, as always.

So are the propers not supposed to be sung by the congregation?

In our parish, the congregation participates in singing responses of RP and Alleluia parts, which are Propers.

AW, I think there's plenty of hubris on all points of the LitWar compass. Couple of considerations:
*When Professor Mahrt elocutes about "interior participation" on the part of the congregation, for example, during an Introit, he's doing so from a very, very particular perspective that is just one aspect of a much larger philosophical construct. In other words, a specific (petrie dish) culture which is his experience of liturgy as practiced quite successfully for over forty years in a specific parish. And that perspective also allows for forty years of congregational participation of the congregation in the portions of the Mass that the documents, as he has discerned their meaning, demand such (the ordinaries, responses to collects, Pater Noster in the OF, etc.)
*Some of us remember that pioneers such as Lucien Deiss worked quiet diligently and prolifically to fulfill the intention of #33 above, and for a brief period of years, Deiss's efforts were taken up quite universally by clergy and lay here in the states. I think that Deiss's idiomatic European treatments, combined with syllabic accentuation issues (suffered from translation?) gave way to the next advent, the SLJ/Dameans treatment of the Psalter and scripture in song.

I suppose what I'm saying is my old saw borrowed from Chicagoland: "All politics are local."
The talking heads insisting upon their righteous vision of "utopia" for the rest of the planet conveniently seem to forget that maxim. In addition, they forget there's never been either any "utopia" or "golden age" that's survived across the centuries. (God bless the Shakers for trying, though!)

I have no idea where this conversation has gone, but it seems to have gone off track.

Regarding the Translations in the Gregorian Missal, they were done by Solesmes.

Regarding the notice that their translations of the Propers were not meant to be used Liturgically, they are merely saying that the translation they did is not the Official translation, whereas their printing of the ICEL Collects (for instance) do reproduce the Official Church version. At that time, the ICEL version they included was very inaccurate (regarding the translation of Latin), which bothered them very much . . . but since they are good & obedient monks, they used it.

As we know, the Church has not specified any single translation for the Sung Propers (although the Church has for the Responsorial Psalm, but this then became de facto worthless, because Bishops and Conferences also approved close to a thousand variants that can be sung at Mass).

It's as simple as that. They are not saying that it would be horrible to sing the Propers in English, or that their translation would (necessarily) not work, if set to music.

They are merely being very clear that their translations of the Propers are not the Official texts.

JMO Thanks for the clarification with regard to the translation of the propers. I suppose it was not clear to me that they (the monks) did the translation themselves or based their scriptural translations on another source.

For me, Musicam Sacram is a difficult document exactly because it provides for many directions. The various degrees of solemnity do make sense to me, but seem to fail in a pastoral regard because most people will never get it. (Yes I said never) The nuance of these degrees is largely lost and confusing for most. I suppose religious communities could make such degrees work, but I will posture and submit that most of us would find these recommendations cumbersome for most congregations. (1967)
It just seems that Musicam Sacram came out of a time of experimentation and excitement. Since that time any number of variations have evolved, most of which ignore the spirit of Musicam Sacram anyway. So, to be bold and annoying, I will say that Musicam Sacram ought to be replaced as soon as possible. But will anybody notice or care? They will if bishops follow... I suppose.

Are we not looking for some consistency and direction in the sacred liturgy? Is the aim to reintroduce sacred liturgical music? Avoiding "Religious Music" as the substitute?
Then I would avoid quoting Musicam Sacram and quote Musicae Sacrae instead (A brilliant encyclical). Or look to Sacrosanctum Concillium. Or look at the tradition of the rite....

Oh well there was some rhetoric and rant from the person who started this thread. I guess I'm tired of talk of change and just want to see it done. My question was motivated not just out of curiosity, but I am trying to prepare the case for use of the SEP beyond my Parish. The more knowledge I have about them, the more myself and others will be able to promote and defend them beyond the borders of our little parishes.

Being pastoral means providing proper steps for your parishioners to achieve the ideals that the Church provides. The ideals of the sacred liturgy of Latin rite has been expressed in the tradition, documents and the writings of the Popes. The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is not changed, but expanded to help people to have easier access (?) to the liturgy. If we ignore the tradition and try to understand the details of the documents, there can be lots of confusions. As our Holy Father says, where there is a confusion, always interpret it in light of the tradition. Isn't this the reason why he issued the Summorum Potificum and Universae Ecclesiae which ask bishops and priests to celebrate more traditional Mass in parishes?
The ideals may not be achieved in our life time. There will always be parishes and individuals who need to start from the bottom level choices that the Universal Church allows. The Church is truly generous to provides possible options as steps, but sadly there are people who use those steps as ideals and mislead the faithful, due to our fallen nature.

So now I'm really confused!
I have started singing the communion antiphon because I wanted to introduce a little history to a congregation who uses OCP as their standard music selection.
The little Latin that we sing is during an after communion song that I'll pick, usually one of the classics (Panis Angelicus, or the like).
I know that the congregation will not (for the time being) sing Gregorian Chant but I would like to work up to it one day.

I am confused by the different degrees and when the Propers should be sung. Some of the them I am unfamiliar with:
29. The following belong to the first degree:

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

a> I am unsure what these rites are - In our parish we sing an opening hymn and priest does not sing an opening prayer.
b> We sing the Gospel acclimation
c> The prayer over the offerings is usually not sung. the Santus is always sung. I am not sure what the doxology of the Canon is. We do chant the Lord's prayer.
The Pax Domini is never sung as well as the payer after communion and formulas of dismissal.

In reading this document, I have never attended a mass that is accurate because degrees 2 and 3 or parts thereof are always used while degree 1 is very often never used. It sounds like the whole thing is backwards.

What should I do at this point?
Should I give up and not sing the Propers (English or Latin)?
Should I encourage the Priest to sing degree 1 and stop singing 2 and 3 all together until he does offer degree 1?
Should I quit all together and just let the modern minded choirs take over the masses I am in charge of?

These are serious questions I hope I receive some good guidance on these issues.

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

This is the dialogue "The Lord be with you" "And also with you". Yes, this document is saying that this response is the first thing to be sung, if anything.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

"The Lord be with you"..." A reading from the Gospel..." "Glory to you O Lord"

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

The preface, including "TLBWY"..."It is right to give Him thanks and praise."
Final doxology of the Canon: "Through Him, with Him, and in Him..."

And, you are quite correct that most parishes do it backwards, because all of these require the priest/deacon to lead and, unfortunately, too many are either not willing, not confident in their singing, or just don't know that they're supposed to be singing it. :(

The whole 1-2-3 scheme is cumulative. Hardly anybody follows it or even knows about it. If your parish hasn't been following it, don't worry: the plan isn't 100% mandatory; it's just a model that tries to put first things first.

Since you asked: Part (a) consists the opening: "In the name of the Father...", etc., "The Lord be with you"....
If your priest sings these, it sets the tone for the Mass: we are doing something sacred, something different from everyday secular life. Do encourage your priest to do this. Make it very easy for him: even singing the texts on one note is better than speaking them.

If he's supportive and interested in singing the Mass, can he adopt a goal of implementing all the #1 elements? If you get the #1 elements in place and it takes only a year, consider yourself lucky.

Will the new translations of the Roman Missal include the Introit, Offertory, and Communion?

The new translation includes the Missal versions of Introits and Communios, just like the current one. As far as I know, the Offertories are still left out.

[deleted]

Just FYI, I asked these questions of a knowledgeble Church official in a position to know and understand all these issues, and he just waved his hand and said that none of this matters right now, that we must sing the propers whether Missal or Graduale in whatever translation. this is what matters right now, and all the rest is just pointless to wonder about. He said that we should all just be happy to make steps now toward singing the liturgy, and that the next generation can work on reconciling all these confusions in a systematic and structural way. He saw nothing to be gained by endlessly puzzling about all the tensions and contradictions in the official books. There is no holy writ on these matters.

Thank you Jeffery, I will continue to sing the Communion Antiphon in English, then I will add the Introit and Offertory.
I will ask the pastor to sing the 1st degrees. I believe he will be open to it. He has been open to some of the things I have been trying to do and he has a decent singing voice.

I will keep you all posted to my progress.

I'll add the Latin text as we grow in knowledge as a community.

vivit Jesu

"I know that the congregation will not (for the time being) sing Gregorian Chant but I would like to work up to it one day."

As you have seen, the simple question of what you should sing and how to find it is very, very confusing.

But to get your people singing gregorian chant, getting the sound of it in their ears, as you are doing is one very good step. Doing it in English is another. Choosing chant hymns, such as Humbly We Adore Thee. for the congregation to sing at Communion, followed by the choir singing a verse or two of it in Latin as a meditation, also helps.

Accompanying chant on the organ is another step to make the gradual (pun intended) transition.

Last, asking questions here helps dispel some of the confusion. As you can see, the question you asked, about what translation is sung, was a good one. The church does not feel that there is a reason to have an "official" translation to be sung at Mass. They are still struggling with what spoken translation to speak at Mass.

Your question raises the valid question: Why have a sung translation that is different from the spoken translation?

Mia-
With all due respect:
People can disagree about things without one of them being misinformed. You seem to be coming from a standpoint that I think the things I do because I'm somehow misinformed. That is not the case.
Moreover, you seem to be ascribing positions to me that I don't hold. I understand Gregorian Chant's place in the Roman Liturgy, and I'm very wary of "personal taste" as the deciding factor in liturgical programming.

My point, which I've already stated, is that "Tradition" is a bit broader than many people who call themselves "traditionalist" seem to believe.
Also, many traditionalists take a selective approach to interpretation- ignoring or reinterpreting legislation and rubrics "in the light of tradition," when it may be the case that a statement or rule was intended specifically to change the course of tradition, to reign in practices, or to otherwise alter the incidentals of liturgy for one reason or another.

The thing about that which is funny in this conversation is... I'm okay with it. Graduals in place of Responsorial Psalms? I wouldn't. But it doesn't upset me even the slightest that someone else does.
Full Gregorian propers with an orchestral Ordinary, a split Sanctus and a silent canon... there's a strong tradition for this sort of thing, even though it goes against the rubrics, so why not?

It's the selectivity of it all that annoys me. Because there's also a very strong tradition of Hymn singing, which likewise has been apparently overruled or otherwise subjugated by rubrics and legislation.
Likewise with contemporary/popular music styles (across every generation).

I'm okay with people thinking/believing that some of these traditions and practices are good, some bad, and some neutral- and I understand that there will be disagreements on these issues.
What I think is the real problem is the, "Not only am I right, but no other viewpoints are even reasonable, and people who think them must be ignorant or stubborn." attitude.