Eastern Novus Ordo?

[ConstantineTG]

Here’s a though: why don’t we all just do the whole thing in mime (which of course means no words in ANY language, whether the derided liturgical, or the exalted vernacular) and be done with it? S Macel Marceau anyone?

I went to a college with a huge program for deaf students. Although we do not have a deaf priest, there is usually a “translator” in front who’d sign the whole Mass for the deaf. I guess if you have a priest who knows how to sign, then you can do a deaf Mass as well if the priest’s hands are free. No need to sign the Consecration, lifting the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ says what is happening more clearly.

 

[malphono]

I went to a college with a huge program for deaf students. Although we do not have a deaf priest, there is usually a “translator” in front who’d sign the whole Mass for the deaf. I guess if you have a priest who knows how to sign, then you can do a deaf Mass as well if the priest’s hands are free. No need to sign the Consecration, lifting the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ says what is happening more clearly.

Fabulous. Then I was right: mime is the way of the future. Rome should make “Mass in Mime” the standard for all Churches, and we eliminate all this language trash forever and ever. Beats what goes on in these fora … plus it’s politically correct. Who could ask for more?

 

[malphono]

Fabulous. Then I was right: mime is the way of the future. Rome should make “Mass in Mime” the standard for all Churches, and we eliminate all this language trash forever and ever. Beats what goes on in these fora … plus it’s politically correct. Who could ask for more?

 

[ProVobis]

The Liturgy would have to be translated for the people to understand anyway. In Latin we say,“Et cum spitiru tuo”. What does it mean? The only way we understand what it means if it were given to us in our language, “And with your spirit”. So to us every time we hear “Et cum spiritu tuo,” in our minds it only means, “and with your spirit.” So why not use the English, “and with your spirit.” Its the same thing.

Hardly. If you can understand “And with your spirit,” please tell us what that means because I don’t understand it better. Who exactly is the “your”? What spirit? How do you know it’s not “Et cum spiritu vestro” or “Et cum animo tuo”? which would mean something different. Should we go down the list with all these “more understandable” translations?

You need precision to fully understand, I would think. Just because you say you think you understand it better doesn’t mean you do.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is any language a “sacred” language? No. Are there, however, venerable and respected liturgical languages? Absolutely. But I’m not going there: it’s beyond the scope of this thread, and even if it weren’t, I just don’t have the wherewithal to fight about it any more.

Yes, I can agree with you that there are venerable and respected liturgical languages.

But I may go a step further than you in saying that if the Church wishes to use these languages then they have a responsibility to teach the faithful the languages used.

 

[ProVobis]

I guess if you have a priest who knows how to sign, then you can do a deaf Mass as well if the priest’s hands are free. No need to sign the Consecration, lifting the bread and wine to become the Body and Blood of Christ says what is happening more clearly.

With all its rubrics and handmissals, the EF doesn’t require any ASL translators. But we’re supposed to be talking Eastern Rites here.

 

[malphono]

Yes, I can agree with you that there are venerable and respected liturgical languages.

But I may go a step further than you in saying that if the Church wishes to use these languages then they have a responsibility to teach the faithful the languages used.

Before I say what little I’m going to say, I want to make clear that what follows is not personal.

Anyway … there was a time (even in relatively recent memory) when I would have taken that thought and run with it a bit. But those days are past. I just can’t do it any more. I no longer care.

 

[Alveus_Lacuna]

Fair point. But since when has English become a sacred language? And has it spread Catholicism like Latin, Greek, Syriac, etc.? Why do we have to have all liturgies in English now, especially when there are such problems with its meaning changing nature? And as far as Scriptures are concerned, we’re going to the other extreme. Reading the comments over in that forum, it seems as if people now treat the Bible as if it had originally been written in English. How can you begin a discussion if the only discussion is which English Bible to have as the standard? Something doesn’t seem right to me there.

Ever heard of the Trilingual Heresy?

 

[Madaglan]

The Ruthenian DL is not a move towards the neo-latinizations. It’s got some translation issues, and a lot of people online complain incessantly about the new music (most of which is very close, even annoyingly close, to the old music).

Solfege, Movable do System
Annotation note: _ indicates additional beat on note, - indicates notes in same word. | indicates a single bar line and || a double. ’ indicates high octave
Di is Do#

The annoyingly close ones (Bold indicates differences):Sun. First Antiphon:
Old at St. Nick: Do-Re Mi-Mi-Mi Mi Mi **Mi Re **Fa Mi | Do-Re Mi Mi Mi Mi_ Mi Mi Mi Re-Re-Fa Mi. ||
Current: Do-Re Mi-Mi-Mi Mi Mi Re Fa Fa Mi | Do-Re Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi_ Mi Mi Re-Fa-Fa Mi ||
(second half same)

Sun. Second Antiphon:
OSN: Do-Re Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Fa Mi | Do Re Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Fa-Fa Re Mi |
Curr: Do-Re Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi Re-Fa Mi | Do Re Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi **Re-Re Fa **Mi |
(Rest same)

Third Antiphon, at the Save Us:
OSN: | La_ La La Sol-La Sol-Fa Mi_
Curr (A): | **Do’ **La La Sol-La Sol-Fa Mi_
(Rest Same)

Thrice Holy Hymn:
OSN: Do’-Sol Mi’ | Re’-Do’ Re’ Mi’ Do’_ | La_-Ti Do’_ La_-Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa-Sol_ | Fa Mi-**Re Re **Do___ :|| Do’-Do’ Do’ Re’-Do’_ Do’ Do’ Do’ Do’__ | Do’ Do’ Do’ Do’-Do’ Re’-Do’ | Re’ Re’ Re’-Re’ Re’ Re’ | Re’-Re’ Ti-Do’___ ||
Curr (C): Do’-Sol Mi’__ | Re’-**Di’ **Re’ Mi’_ Do’___ | La_-Ti Do’_ La_-Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa-Sol_ | Fa’_ Mi’_-Mi’_ Re’-Di’-Re’-Mi Do’___ :|| **Do’-Sol Mi’ Mi’ Mi’-Mi’ Re’-Di’ Re’ Mi’ Do’__ | La_ Ti Ti Do’_ La_ Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa Sol_ | Do’__-Sol Mi’Re’-Di’-Re-Mi Do | La_ Ti_-Do’-La Sol-Fa-Mi-Fa-Sol_ **||

But note that Current (B) is close to the second half…

On the triple Lord have mercy in the Litany of Fervent Supplication, the first melody:
OSN: Do Do-Ti Do-Re-Mi, Mi Mi-Re Mi-Fa-Sol, Sol-La-Sol Fa Mi-Re-Do___
Curr.: Do Do-Sol Do-Re-Mi, Mi Mi-Re Mi-Fa-Sol, Sol-La-Sol Fa Mi-Re-Do___

Blessed Be the Name of the Lord:
OSN: Do-Re Mi Fa Sol_ Sol Sol Sol_ Sol Mi Fa-Mi_-Re_-Do___
Curr. (C): Do-Re Mi Fa Sol_ Sol Sol Sol_ Sol-Fa Mi Fa-Mi_-Re_-Do___
One note added in the word “Now”

Dismissal Glory to God…
OSN: Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi__ Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi-Re Re Re Re-Re Re Re-Re-Re Re-Mi. Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Re Fa Fa Fa-Mi.
Curr: Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi Mi__ Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi-Re Re Re Re-Re Re Re-Re-Re Re-Mi. Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Mi Mi Mi Mi-Re Re Re Re-Mi.

Our old Psalm intonation: {Do} Mi | {Re} Ti Do ||
Current Psalm intonation: {Do} | {Re} Ti Do ||
Lots of little tiny differences, mostly in the addition of melismas.

@Jeff: MCI notes y’all want to know what the various parishes were using… here y’are… most of what we were using turned up in whole or in part in the current book!

What was the reasoning behind these changes? Was it to make the music easier to chant in English? A return to a more ancient rendering? I started going to an ACROD parish just as the changes to the Ruthenian liturgy were being introduced. The Ruthenian parish I went to was exempt from implementing these changes right away, I believe because both cantor and priest were quite old. So, I have yet to see these changes in practice.

I wonder, will these changes in the Ruthenian church affect ACROD, which still primarily uses prostopinije?

 

[dvdjs]

What was the reasoning behind these changes? Was it to make the music easier to chant in English? A return to a more ancient rendering? I started going to an ACROD parish just as the new Ruthenian liturgy was being introduced. The Ruthenian parish I went to, however, was exempt from implementing these changes right away, I believe because both cantor and priest were quite old. I wonder, how will these changes in the Ruthenian church affect ACROD, which still primarily uses prostopinije?

Well, you will get arguments on this matter all over the place.

However, it can be said that a thrust of the new renderings was to be more faithful to melodies the (Slavonic) Bokshaj Prostopinije. This thrust meant, for example, elimination of awful prokimenon settings that came out in the 1970’s. In the antiphons, it meant adhering to a common chant pattern rather than incorporating ad hoc adaptations for each verse. These adaptations, also from the 70’s, incorporated some musically questionable practices (placement of accents that deviated from the Slavonic and changed the character of the music) and had the effect of inhibiting the singing of festal antiphons for which ad hoc settings has either not been composed or were not known.

On the plus side the new settings are better musically; they handle the English better. On the minus side, some changes are so subtle enough that they are hard to learn: it is hard to change old habits to new ones when the difference is slight, especially if the singers can’t read music. Some of the music is more challenging, and some of the settings are also a little tricky for rank amateur singers - who have modest vocal technique, less than perfect diction, and don’t handle diphthongs in the most professional way. Most important on the plus side, the work of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute brought out many more settings of liturgical hymns in English than had been previously published in the Metropolia (still far short of Bokshay, Papp, Sokol, etc.), and music for vespers, matins, compline, etc.

ACROD has gone thought some recent rewriting of its English texts and its English prostopinije chants. I think that the MCI did, if not a perfect job, a much better one than ACROD, whose chants are often terribly awkward. They also take liberties in translations that would run afoul of the stricter Catholic sensibilities.

I don’t know first-hand what Bishop Nicholas thinks of the RDL, and the accompanying music. But he did the invite the head of the MCI to lead workshop on this music with his seminarians and clergy; I saw news of this on the ACROD website and on a Deacon’s blog. He is a great singer and a great devotee of prostopinije so I suspect that he will like much of what he hears.

Here is a nice link for people who like prostopinje:
rozhlas.sk/inetportal/web/index.php?lang=1&stationID=0&page=showRelacia&id=614&stationID=5

 

[Madaglan]

Yes, I can agree with you that there are venerable and respected liturgical languages.

But I may go a step further than you in saying that if the Church wishes to use these languages then they have a responsibility to teach the faithful the languages used.

Personally, I think the Latin Church (or any Christian church really) would be doing a great favor were it to teach its members both Latin & Greek. The English language is highly derivative of both, and the faithful would have a more ready understanding of words like immaculate, propitiation, expiation, consubstantial, transubstantiation, Eucharist, evangelical, et cetera. A classical education typically encompasses these languages, and I wonder if the problem is not the non-native status of the languages themselves but the fact that they are neglected in the education of children.

 

[Madaglan]

Well, you will get arguments on this matter all over the place.

However, it can be said that a thrust of the new renderings was to be more faithful to melodies the (Slavonic) Bokshaj Prostopinije. This thrust meant, for example, elimination of awful prokimenon settings that came out in the 1970’s. In the antiphons, it meant adhering to a common chant pattern rather than incorporating ad hoc adaptations for each verse. These adaptations, also from the 70’s, incorporated some musically questionable practices (placement of accents that deviated from the Slavonic and changed the character of the music) and had the effect of inhibiting the singing of festal antiphons for which ad hoc settings has either not been composed or were not known.

On the plus side the new settings are better musically; they handle the English better. On the minus side, some changes are so subtle enough that they are hard to learn: it is hard to change old habits to new ones when the difference is slight, especially if the singers can’t read music. Some of the music is more challenging, and some of the settings are also a little tricky for rank amateur singers - who have modest vocal technique, less than perfect diction, and don’t handle diphthongs in the most professional way. Most important on the plus side, the work of the Metropolitan Cantor Institute brought out many more settings of liturgical hymns in English than had been previously published in the Metropolia (still far short of Bokshay, Papp, Sokol, etc.), and music for vespers, matins, compline, etc.

ACROD has gone thought some recent rewriting of its English texts and its English prostopinije chants. I think that the MCI did, if not a perfect job, a much better one than ACROD, whose chants are often terribly awkward. They also take liberties in translations that would run afoul of the stricter Catholic sensibilities.

I don’t know first-hand what Bishop Nicholas thinks of the RDL, and the accompanying music. But he did the invite the head of the MCI to lead workshop on this music with his seminarians and clergy; I saw news of this on the ACROD website and on a Deacon’s blog. He is a great singer and a great devotee of prostopinije so I suspect that he will like much of what he hears.

Here is a nice link for people who like prostopinje:
rozhlas.sk/inetportal/web/index.php?lang=1&stationID=0&page=showRelacia&id=614&stationID=5

Thank you for your detailed explanation. I’ve downloaded and frequently listen to the MCI chants. I thoroughly enjoy its work.

Thanks for the link, too.

 

[Madaglan]

Nice post.

This is why I balk at the idea of a “sacred” language.

Philosophically speaking language only means what we as a society agrees that it means. There is no “sacred” meaning, that is there is no defined meaning to any language or words by God. God has not defined any language for us to use. Actually, if you read the Holy Scriptures, all languages were created by God in the story of the Tower of Babel. All languages have developed from earlier languages and if one believes in the truth of the story of the Tower of Babel then every language has its roots in something created by God.

What about glossolalia? Isn’t that the language of the Holy Spirit?

We may say that language is “fallen” with the destruction of the Tower of Babel. Yet, is it possible, for a language, as part of the created order, to be redeemed and sanctified, purified of foulness and set aside for holy use, to become as pure a language as the language used between Adam and God?

If philosophy can be saved, why not language?

Just a thought, not necessarily my viewpoint.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

What about glossolalia? Isn’t that the language of the Holy Spirit?

Can you show where you get this from?

The Speaking in Tongues spoken of in the Holy Scriptures is speaking in actual languages that are unknown to the individual speaking it but known by someone who hears it. It is the miracle that occurred with the Apostles on Pentecost.

The “praying in tongues” that pentecostals and charismatics do, IMHO, does not appear in the Holy Scriptures. It is a modern development. It is interesting the studies that have been done on it. One study shows that those who do this actually share characteristics of their “speech” patterns with the pastors who taught them this practice. There also seems to be some repetition to it. I do not believe that this is any language.

But with the smiley you were using sarcasm. Which is fine, just does not always carry over this medium. Believe me, I came through the Assemblies of God so I know a bit about “praying in tongues”.

As for the rest. Language can be saved, but why only a certain selected few? Why not all?

 

[Madaglan]

Can you show where you get this from?

The Speaking in Tongues spoken of in the Holy Scriptures is speaking in actual languages that are unknown to the individual speaking it but known by someone who hears it. It is the miracle that occurred with the Apostles on Pentecost.

The “praying in tongues” that pentecostals and charismatics do, IMHO, does not appear in the Holy Scriptures. It is a modern development. It is interesting the studies that have been done on it. One study shows that those who do this actually share characteristics of their “speech” patterns with the pastors who taught them this practice. There also seems to be some repetition to it. I do not believe that this is any language.

But with the smiley you were using sarcasm. Which is fine, just does not always carry over this medium. Believe me, I came through the Assemblies of God so I know a bit about “praying in tongues”.

As for the rest. Language can be saved, but why only a certain selected few? Why not all?

I was speaking tongues in cheek, for the most part.

I wasn’t involved in the Pentecostal movement, but I had my exposure in being involved with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I never spoke in tongues myself and always was wary of the unknown language that nobody seemed to interpret.

Perhaps all languages are meant to be sanctified but we, in our weakness, prevent this from happening through our sins.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I was speaking tongues in cheek, for the most part.

Very nice!

I wasn’t involved in the Pentecostal movement, but I had my exposure in being involved with the Catholic Charismatic Renewal. I never spoke in tongues myself and always was wary of the unknown language that nobody seemed to interpret.

Perhaps all languages are meant to be sanctified but we, in our weakness, prevent this from happening through our sins.

I think we can agree on this.

But as the Church does not seem interested in teaching the liturgical languages, I prefer the use of the vernacular language with a mixing of some of the liturgical language at times.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Language is nothing more than a means of verbal communication. Its effectiveness and preciseness depends on the two parties communicating.

In the Philippines, if you speak english and you can’t speak clearly and straight and with the proper pronounciation, you will be criticized heavily. Its not because we’re expert english speakers, its that most people think that if you can’t do it well, better not speak english at all. But one english professor commented about the fact that language is just a means of communicating. If one person says something and the other understands exactly what the other person is saying, it doesn’t really matter if the language rules are properly followed or not, you have communicated properly.

The same applies to God. God does not only hear our words, but knows our mind and our hearts. There is no clearer lines of communication than one praying to God. Language is not important. I would have a problem believing in a Supreme Being who can only understand a handful of language. If you believe that God can only appreciate a hand full of language, then that is a limited God. Isn’t that heresy? What happened to all-knowing? God knows exactly what you mean when you pray, no matter what human language you use. Besides, isn’t arguing about texts a protestant thing? Isn’t that some form of sola scriptura? Bible-only believers are reliant on the precision of text of scripture. If an idea or belief cannot be found in any form of interpretation of the scripture, then its not to be believed in. Isn’t that like saying, if we do not pray in Latin or in Greek, God cannot hear our prayers or they are less effacious because they are less precise?

 

[Aramis]

AGGGHHH … (shame there’s no smiley for primal scream …) but I’d probably take the gas pipe. Yes, I am all too familiar with the post-conciliar emphasis on preaching, but I never liked it, do not like it, and never will like it. No matter how good the preacher, if I wanted to hear absurdly long sermons (by any other name, a “homily” is a sermon), I’d be in one of the ubiquitous “Bible churches” found on just about every street corner (even in NYC, believe it or not).

A homily is a sermon, but not all sermons are homilies. A homily is explicitly required to relate to the readings. A sermon is not so required, but might still relate to the readings.

The Rubrics for the Ruthenian, for example, last I saw called for a sermon; the Roman OF, however, require a homily on Sundays and holy days of obligation, but not on weekdays of ferial or commemoration ranks.

Vatican II’s call for homilies was to focus the after-the-Gospel lesson on to the topics of the lections and Gospel(s).

 

[ProVobis]

Personally, I think the Latin Church (or any Christian church really) would be doing a great favor were it to teach its members both Latin & Greek. The English language is highly derivative of both, and the faithful would have a more ready understanding of words like immaculate, propitiation, expiation, consubstantial, transubstantiation, Eucharist, evangelical, et cetera. A classical education typically encompasses these languages, and I wonder if the problem is not the non-native status of the languages themselves but the fact that they are neglected in the education of children.

According to the decrees of Veterum Sapientia, these are still required.

And you’re right about the English. Take away the Latin and the Greek and we’d all be speaking something more Germanic.

 

[malphono]

A homily is a sermon, but not all sermons are homilies. A homily is explicitly required to relate to the readings. A sermon is not so required, but might still relate to the readings.

The Rubrics for the Ruthenian, for example, last I saw called for a sermon; the Roman OF, however, require a homily on Sundays and holy days of obligation, but not on weekdays of ferial or commemoration ranks.

Vatican II’s call for homilies was to focus the after-the-Gospel lesson on to the topics of the lections and Gospel(s).

Yes, I’m quite aware of all of that, thank you. I am also all too familiar with, e.g., (a) homilies where the relation to the readings is so contrived as to be laughable, and (b) homilies that go on for nearly 30 minutes (and sometimes even longer) whether or not there is a demonstrable relation to the readings.

In any case, I could say that the semantical differences between the definitions of “homily” and “sermon” are important to me. But saying that won’t make it true.