English used in the SEP and Gregorian Missal
  • PMulholland
    Posts: 120
    Does anyone know which version of the English scriptural translation is used in the SEP and Gregorian Missal?
    Thanks.

    Peter
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It was commissioned by Solesmes I believe. I would like to know more.
  • PMulholland
    Posts: 120
    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...?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    No no. He is talking about the other translations.
  • Ben YankeBen Yanke
    Posts: 3,114
    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.
  • donr
    Posts: 940
    I have a question for those who know more about the Liturgy and/or Catholic Theology than I do.
    This week is the 19th Sunday in Ordinary time. The SEP version of the communion antiphon uses the 1st person in reference to the Lord.
    I have always had an issue with speaking for the Lord because I am not he.
    Does anyone know what to do here. I have seen an addition in some translations state at the end of the proper "Says the Lord".

    Which is correct to sing?
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 723
    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)
  • I believe the Ego Sum appears only in the liturgy in a communion antiphon from a past discussion.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    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.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    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.


    hehe... Which is what is precisely what's happening in all so many projects around here...

    I suppose I am of the opinion that if one is using English for the Propers, the Missal and not the Graduale texts should be used - but the convincing arguments put forth by defenders of using the Graduale propers have allowed me to at least acquiesce in good conscience.

    The post Vatican II liturgies are full of this kind of compromise. In the distribution of Mass Propers and the Liturgy of the Hours Antiphons, the Church seemed to be saying: "We really think that x should be the appropriate text in this case, but in the instances where there aren't always settings of x in the Gregorian corpus, you should use y if you are singing from the Gregorian corpus." Hence the redistribution of the Graduale Romanum with its translations "not intended for use in the Liturgy" as well as the Ordo Cantus Officii.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    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.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 723
    But we also have this from the Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum (3 April 1969):

    The text of the Graduale Romanum has not been changed as far as the music is concerned. In the interest of their being more readily understood, however, the responsoral psalm (which St. Augustine and St. leo the Great often mention) as well as the entrance and communion antiphons have been revised for use in Masses that are not sung.


    Does this mean that the propers in the Missal are only intended to be read, and those in the Graduale when the Mass is sung?
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    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.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Exactly... there's the grey area - and why I can recognize both sides of this.

    I am left to wonder how does the need to have something be more readily understood disappear if it is sung (in English or Latin or Swahili)? I suppose they meant sung in Latin - to an existing chant or polyphonic setting - in order not to abandon the great patrimony of music there (even though that has nearly happened anyway). They did not say that explicitly, however - and so we make room for other opinions.

    If the Simple English Propers are to provide a gateway for the restoration of the Graduale Romanum at a parish, then yes, it makes sense to have the texts match.

    If, however, it does not get beyond that point, well, then, I'm not sure holding onto those Propers are really what the Church had in mind - whether or not we agree.

    But I don't think it's wrong. Either way. And the whole divergence of the Proper texts between the Missal and Graduale was a compromise with consequences. Like these.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    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.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    "The translation of the Gregorian Misssal is not meant to be sung."

    Is it because it is not stylistic enough? What makes a text in English (since I am not a native English speaker) qualified to be sung?
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    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.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    The point from the introduction of the Gregorian Missal is that their English translations were purely functional. They didn't give any thought to singing, and they aren't official in anyway.
    They weren't intended for use.

    That's different than whether they could or should be used.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    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.... :)
  • It's fair to say that there is widespread confusion on all these matters and that these confusions have no final answer because the confusions are absolutely pervasive and reach back forty plus years. Someday after we are all dead they will be resolved. In the meantime, we have liturgy to sing and sing in a manner most consistent with the internal integrity of the rite.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    Well said, as always.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,851
    To get back to the question about "Ego sum": there are at least several introit and communion antiphons written in the voice of Christ, or even quoting from His words in the Gospel, so there's no need to be concerned that this is not part of the Church's tradition.

    It's the choir's job to sing these texts, and the congregation, for the most part, gets to hear them and isn't placed in the position of singing them.
  • donr
    Posts: 940
    So are the propers not supposed to be sung by the congregation?
  • donr
    Posts: 940
    This is what I found on Vatican.va.
    http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

    SECOND VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL
    MUSICAM SACRAM
    INSTRUCTION ON MUSIC IN THE LITURGY


    Given 5 March, 1967

    32. The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion, can be retained according to the judgment of the competent territorial authority, as long as songs of this sort are in keeping with the parts of the Mass, with the feast or with the liturgical season. It is for the same territorial authority to approve the texts of these songs.

    33. It is desirable that the assembly of the faithful should participate in the songs of the Proper as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.

    in 32. Could not this substitution for the songs given in the Graduale be an English translation?
    in 33. Are they talking about participation via listening or singing by the faithful?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    In our parish, the congregation participates in singing responses of RP and Alleluia parts, which are Propers.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    33 Seems to be clearly about participation via singing, especially considering the bit about simple responses and other suitable settings. This RotR revisionism about "participation means listening quietly" is a little ridiculous at times.
  • 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!)
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    >>God bless the Shakers for trying, though!
    Love their music!

    As I've expressed many times, I'm very sympathetic to many of the goals of the RotR, particularly the renewed emphasis on Gregorian Chant and sung propers.
    But historical revisionism drives me crazy.

    Does participation sometimes mean being quiet and actively listening? Yes of course it does.
    I participate in the proclaimed readings every Sunday by actively listening to them. Some people participate by reading along out of a worship aide or missallette.
    (And... more importantly... I attempt to participate in those lessons by following the advice from James: "Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says.")

    But
    Does it also, very clearly, sometimes mean congregations actually singing outloud? Obviously yes.

    “Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

    Looks like they wanted the people to sing portions of the Ordinary.

    “Composers, filled with the Christian spirit, should feel that their vocation is to cultivate sacred music and increase its store of treasures.

    Let them produce compositions which have the qualities proper to genuine sacred music, not confining themselves to works which can be sung only by large choirs, but providing also for the needs of small choirs and for the active participation of the entire assembly of the faithful.”


    I don't see how you can read that in context (the contrast between large choirs, small choirs, and the assembly) and imagine that the writers really meant "providing opportunities for the congregation to sit quietly and listen to small or large choirs."

    And finally...

    It is desirable that the assembly of the faithful should participate in the songs of the Proper as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.


    Why should there be simple responses and other suitable settings if "participate in the songs" doesn't mean "singing?"


    It seems to me that they were anticipating something like the SEP, or a Latin version thereof.


    I'm not suggesting dismissal of the Graduale and full Gregorian Propers. I'm saying that the documents allow for and call for different things, and that a variety across the universal landscape is certainly to be expected and probably to be desired.

    I'm also saying that reading the documents with a pre-conceived and biased agenda is just as bad when traditionalists do it as when progressives do it.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    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.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Also we need to remember the First and Second degrees of the congregation singing, which are the Dialogues and Ordinaries. And the rubric says the third degree (Propers) may never be done WITHOUT the first and second degrees. (Musicam Sacram 28, 29) I'm not sure how many parishes actually chant the first and second degrees fully. We need to work on Dialogues and Ordinaries before even having the Propers, or even parts of the Propers, sung by the congregation. Maybe the congregation can listen to Propers sung by choirs while they are working on Dialogues and Ordinaries first? As was quoted in another thread, Singing well, praises twice, not just singing. I don't think it means you have to have a gorgeous voice to sing well, but one has to truly prepare to sing well, especially if you are singing in God's Voice.

    Another thing I'd like to share here is that instead of just keep pushing the congregation sing, we need to think about why the Church wants more people to sing and how. What is the goal of the congregation singing for a church musician? Singing is a mean, not the end. Is it just opening mouth a true participation? Are we prepared to do so with internal participation that the Church places before the external participation? What is the real participation in the Mass? To me, the true participation is living one's life as a Christian and unite himself with the prayers of the celebrant In Mass (who is Christ in person) and offer them together to God. To me there are lot more involved in singing and participating in Mass than just opening mouths and vocalizing.
    Sorry for the off track comment, but it seems it's unavoidable discussion for many people here on singing Propers and the use of SEP in OF Mass.
  • 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.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,851
    Some of the 20th-century documents do say it's laudable for a congregation to sing some or all of the Propers, but it's an innovation.

    It's probably not part of the original logic of the system: to call upon the congregation to learn new music for propers that change from week to week and day to day, even.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    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.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    There's a problem there when talking about tradition, though.
    That being... who's tradition?

    Mass has not been celebrated in a single, completely consistent way anywhere for any length of time, and certainly not universally.
    German traditions? Italian traditions? English traditions? American?
    Traditions in use until the Second Vatican Council, but were apparently discontinued (but really not!)? Traditions in use before Trent, but discontinued?
    Traditions unique to a particular religious order or language group?

    Benedict seems to have affirmed Roman tradition very strongly, as well he should.
    But he seems also to have affirmed German tradition with regards to orchestral Masses and hymn singing.
    His outreach to Anglicans, and the clear directive to incorporate English tradition into a Latin-Rite liturgy is well known.
    If NLM is to be believed, there is also a flourishing under his reign of Ambrosian and Dominican Rites.

    I'm all for tradition.
    But it's important to remember that tradition is not monolithic, nor can it be captured in a set of hard and fast rules and regulations.
  • donr
    Posts: 940
    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.
  • I am confused by the different degrees and when the Propers should be sung.


    Donr,

    I think that your confusion lies in one simple point: The three degrees of participation described in Musicam Sacram are degrees of congregational singing.

    This precisely means that the congregation should not sing the Propers unless they are also singing the Order of Mass and the Ordinary of the Mass in full! So who's left to sing the proper if the congregation is not? Perhaps the choir?
  • bcb
    Posts: 36
    (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. :(
  • bcb
    Posts: 36
    Also, in the entrance rites, "In the name of the Father..." should be sung as well, with the people's "Amen" response.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 7,851
    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.
  • To circle around to the original point of this discussion again, I have a question:

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

    If so, then there de facto would be official translations of those texts which are the same as in the GR, even if the texts in the MR were meant for spoken use, not sung use (reference Christopher's article here for both the reasons for the discrepancy and a comprehensive chart of agreements and non-agreements between the two books. :-)

    This would leave some texts that appear only in the GR without an official translation. And without an official translation of the GR available, I would think that a composer/music director could exercise prudential judgment in choosing or creating a translation for the GR-only texts. (I'd be tempted to consult Fr. Z and a few Latinists I know of that same calibre.) But some person's judgment might mean using the Solemnes "not meant for liturgy translations"; another person's judgment would lean toward a smoothed-out version of Douay-Rheims-Challoner with the thee/thou modernized; and someone else's something in between.

    So: do the Introits, Offertories, and Communions appear in the new translations? (If not, why all the furor over the Propers?)

    Just asking for the edification of us all!
  • 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.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    The Propers do appear (sans Offertories) in the forthcoming Roman Missal - the same ones as in the current Sacramentary.

    Your idea of using the Missal translations for the Propers that match is a good one - up to a point. After the bishops' conferences approved the translation and sent it to Rome, they made some adjusments - one of which I beleive was replacing the translation of text taken from the psalms (like many of the propers) with the same text as translated in the Revised Grail Psalms. Their goal, I believe, was consistency. The problem is the texts of the propers do not always quote the Latin Vulgate (or neo-Vulgate) word for word - often to highlight some specific connection between the celebration of the day and the Psalm. So - all that is lost when you replace with an otherwise (IMO) pretty good translation of the same Psalm.

    And the Offertories are left out because they do not exist in the Latin Missale Romanum. That is not a problem with the English books, it's a problem with the Missal itself.
  • SkirpRSkirpR
    Posts: 854
    [deleted]
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    The new ICEL translation contains the following and NOTHING else:

    1. Translations of the SPOKEN Introit (not the SUNG texts).

    2. Translations of the SPOKEN Communion (not the SUNG texts).
  • 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.
  • Some of us are not 'endlessly puzzling'...we are simply trying to do our best to be faithful by using our reason to figure out what 'faithful' is at this moment, and not trying to be argumentative or legalistic. It would be good if that knowledgeable official would say this sort of thing openly and clearly.

    And yes, I do subscribe to the view that we need to work 'brick by brick', to restore singing the Mass (=praying the Mass), and to pray that our grandchildren will see the fruit of our faithful labours.

    JMO, gratias ago tibi.
  • donr
    Posts: 940
    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
  • Patricia, the problem is that very, very people in any kind of decision-making position even grasp that these are issues at all. This is very difficult for those of us in music to understand; we often imagine that the hierarchy is as concerned about these details as we are. The truth is that only a handful of people have grasped even the basics. This lack of understanding here is absolutely pervasive. In the backdrop here is the overwhelming reality that the propers make any appearances at all in perhaps 1% of parish liturgical settings today. I'm only suggesting that we all need constantly to keep the big picture in mind. There is a new push on for propers and this is a fantastic thing; it's my own view that we need to seize the moment and not get bogged down in confusions that are only interesting to people on this forum.
  • "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?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Adam Wood, I sincerely suggest you get familiar with Traditional Latin Mass (it took a few years for me to appreciate it. Many good things come slowly; Maybe hard for young people to take. ), and then expand to other rites, if you are interested in Roman Catholic Liturgy. (as in the documents of the Roman Catholic Church, Gregorian chant has the first place in the liturgy, and it is an integral part of the Mass of the Latin rite, whether some people has the taste of it or not. Liturgy is not a collection of our tastes as some modern people led to believe as the Church provides some options for steps. Even when OF Mass expands to allow to add music from other rites, the Church places Gregorian chant as the principal music for the Latin rite. This main idea has not been changed as far as I know. One's historical knowledge cannot debate which music is the principal music of the liturgy. This might require a big or small sacrifice on our part, but when we do that I believe we are opening our hearts to receive more grace. Without this kind of small sacrifice, I don't know how one can actually enter and participate in the Holy Sacrifice. )
    We just had a Missa Cantata with our schola singing all the Gregorian Propers (with an added hymn and motet). The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was mighty beautiful and dignified.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,307
    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.