Gloria

[AveMaria12]

I do not know how this represents any authority as opposed to personal opinion or preference .

Slowness to act? Do you mean absolutely no action? I only ask because the guidelines from the USCCB are the only documentation so far on this thread. I have never seen any Church document that supports this theory that singing the Gloria with the refrain is wrong.

I found this from one bishop:
rcav.org/Missal/Roman_Missal-Frequently_Asked_Questions/#mgloria

In my own diocese, most of the selections we were sent included a refrain. I can’t link what I received in the mail, of course. I will keep looking in case there is something that contradicts this somewhere, but clearly the Gloria refrain is not wrong in these dioceses, and I suspect in the U.S.

Hey, that my Arch Diocese.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not just my opinion.

Yes, it is your opinion (note my sig line). The question is whether it is wrong. So far no one has found one authoritative document saying that it was wrong. As you say, I challenge you to find just one. Until then, the opinions of the bishops quote above **is **the authority for the liturgy in their diocese. No further document is needed.

Now it may be your opinion (but neither that or that of my bishop or my priest), that without a document saying positively this are that is permitted that it is “wrong” (the original question", but I would rather hold that in light of the way bishops excercise authority in their diocese, in light of the instructions of the USCCB (and CCCB), that such a positive formulation is unnecessary. Most bishops seem to think it unnecessary.

I actually see the objections to this Gloria as a good thing. I the focus of people second guessing priests and bishops on liturgy has become such a mundane issue, then we truly have made positive strides in proper liturgy.

 

[pnewton]

Another criticism for Glorias with refrains that I have heard is that the people ought to sing the whole Gloria. While I admit that I see far more people who only sing the refrain when such Glorias are sung, I have never seen a case where some people did not sing.

We actually sing it all the way through. When the new translation came out, some people here thought it best to have a whole new setting, and I found one bishop while researching this topic that said the same thing. The reasoning was to make the transition easier. I guess it is a matter of prudence, for we were pretty successful in using the same setting re-written and we already have it down pat pretty well. Everyone sings it.

 

[pnewton]

Nothing here that resembles Old Negro Spirituals where one person calls out a verse of several lines and the people reply with a single repeated line.

I grew up with the great old Church hymns that had refrains. When I became Catholic, I found that the old Catholic hymns do the same. This is what the Gloria is like we use. It bears no resemblance to old negro spirituals, not that I think this would be a bad thing, escpecially for those from that culture.

 

[SMHW]

We actually sing it all the way through. When the new translation came out, some people here thought it best to have a whole new setting, and I found one bishop while researching this topic that said the same thing. The reasoning was to make the transition easier. I guess it is a matter of prudence, for we were pretty successful in using the same setting re-written and we already have it down pat pretty well. Everyone sings it.

Since the new translation we’ve also been using a setting that has us singing right through. In previous years we have tended to vary settings by seasons of the liturgical year. I don’t know when we will eventually introduce some other new Gloria or revised version of an older setting.

 

[pnewton]

Since the new translation we’ve also been using a setting that has us singing right through. In previous years we have tended to vary settings by seasons of the liturgical year. I don’t know when we will eventually introduce some other new Gloria or revised version of an older setting.

I do not know if and when we will introduce a new one. For now I want to stick with the two we use, Mass of Creation and Jubilate Dei (Latin).

 

[superamazingman]

According to my pastor after discussions with our Archbishop this is allowed. For me to interpret documents and tell them I know better is diving head first into a battle of authority where I as a lay Catholic have none. This is a case of preference among allowed choices within the authority of the Pastors and Bishops. Stop trying to get your way via extreme document interpretation and making mountains out of mole hills. Ask the local authority and accept the answer, period.

It’s not at all extreme, unless you think we should just keep throwing in the phrase “glory to God in the highest” during the rest of the Mass as well.

Lamb of God, GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST you take away the sins of the world GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST have mercy on us.

It’s the same thing… you’re taking phrases out of order and repeating.

It’s not at all extreme to say we shouldn’t follow the texts of the missal. It’s just that some have a hard time accepting it.

 

[superamazingman]

Yes, it is your opinion (note my sig line). The question is whether it is wrong. So far no one has found one authoritative document saying that it was wrong. As you say, I challenge you to find just one. Until then, the opinions of the bishops quote above **is **the authority for the liturgy in their diocese. No further document is needed.

Now it may be your opinion (but neither that or that of my bishop or my priest), that without a document saying positively this are that is permitted that it is “wrong” (the original question", but I would rather hold that in light of the way bishops excercise authority in their diocese, in light of the instructions of the USCCB (and CCCB), that such a positive formulation is unnecessary. Most bishops seem to think it unnecessary.

I actually see the objections to this Gloria as a good thing. I the focus of people second guessing priests and bishops on liturgy has become such a mundane issue, then we truly have made positive strides in proper liturgy.

So far, no one has found an authoritative document saying it’s right either, which means Sacrosanctum Concilium 22.3 kicks in. Taking phrases out of order is in fact a change, by definition, which means it is forbidden, despite the thoughts of some priests.

I’m sorry, you don’t need a document saying it’s wrong. I could (but don’t need to) post the documents saying that not a word of the Mass may be changed. That’s all you need

Since you’re the one claiming that we DON’T need to celebrate Mass exactly according to the book (from start to finish), the burden of proof is on you to prove that it’s ok, not on me to prove there’s a problem.

You don’t say the agnus dei before the penitential act, and tell people to find a document forbidding it.

 

[pnewton]

I’m sorry, you don’t need a document saying it’s wrong. I could (but don’t need to) post the documents saying that not a word of the Mass may be changed.

Since you’re the one claiming that we DON’T need to celebrate Mass exactly according to the book (from start to finish), the burden of proof is on you to prove that it’s ok, not on me to prove there’s a problem…

Of course I am** not** saying that. I am saying that repeating part of the Gloria is not changing the words and it **is **exactly according to the GIRM. I never add anything extra to the Mass. I guess we will just disagree on this part, but I do not agree with your re-phrasing of what I believe. That is definitely your opinion, and as I know me better than you know me, I think my opinion trumps yours as to what I think.

Personally, with a bishop, a priest and a thousand plus families, that is quite enough opinions for me to concern myself with, especially as the first contains actual authority. I really never try to please all the posters here. I know that is quite impossible. Too many people here are more too opinionated and love to tell others they are wrong based on their own assessment and perceived liturgical expertise. You do things as you think best and I will do the same.

PS - I am pretty sure that my bishop, and the others mentioned here, have actually read SC, as you and I have.

Yes, I do need something more definitive here

 

[superamazingman]

Of course I am** not** saying that. I am saying that repeating part of the Gloria is not changing the words and it **is **exactly according to the GIRM. I never add anything extra to the Mass. I guess we will just disagree on this part, but I do not agree with your re-phrasing of what I believe. That is definitely your opinion, and as I know me better than you know me, I think my opinion trumps yours as to what I think.

I mean no disrespect, but I don’t understand what you’re saying. Having a refrained Gloria is obviously changing the text because you are saying “Glory to God” when you should be saying “Lord Jesus Christ” or “For you alone.” If the text was being followed, then the following would be sung exactly. I don’t understand how you’re not seeing this. moving around phrases in a text is by definition changing that text.

Glory to God in the highest,
and on earth peace to people of good will.

We praise you, we bless you, we adore you, we glorify you, we give you thanks for your great glory,
Lord God, heavenly King, O God, almighty Father.

Lord Jesus Christ,
Only Begotten Son,
Lord God, Lamb of God,
Son of the Father,
you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us;
you take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;

you are seated at the right hand of the Father, have mercy on us.

For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit,
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.

 

[MarkThompson]

I mean no disrespect, but I don’t understand what you’re saying. Having a refrained Gloria is obviously changing the text because you are saying “Glory to God” when you should be saying “Lord Jesus Christ” or “For you alone.” If the text was being followed, then the following would be sung exactly. I don’t understand how you’re not seeing this. moving around phrases in a text is by definition changing that text.

One can see it either way. By one view, which seems to be the one you’re taking, what is sung must be no more and no less than what is printed in the missal – e.g., it would be forbidden to replace the Great Amen (text: “Amen”) with “Amen, amen, amen.” I suppose that’s a view one could take, but it’s not a view the Church was appeared inclined to take. Or, to quote myself,
if this were to be understood literally, then it would ban a huge proportion of sacred polyphony from the Mass, since composers so often repeat and interweave the “official” texts. So clearly that is not the intent. The question, then, is whether the use of a refrain is more like other repetitions and embellishments, and thus licit, or more like making things up and sticking in foreign texts, and thus illicit. It is a matter of interpretation, and it can hardly be said that there is one “obvious” answer. The Roman documents do not deal with the question. Consequently, it falls to others to decide on the right course, and that’s what the bishops did on this topic in Sing to the Lord, which was approved by 88% of the American bishops.
Like it or not, the Sing to the Lord interpretation of what can be done with the text of the Gloria is a legitimate interpretation, just as the two opposing views I mentioned above of what can be done with the Great Amen are both legitimate. If the Vatican sees any need to issue a corrective, it can do so at any moment.

 

[superamazingman]

One can see it either way. By one view, which seems to be the one you’re taking, what is sung must be no more and no less than what is printed in the missal – e.g., it would be forbidden to replace the Great Amen (text: “Amen”) with “Amen, amen, amen.” I suppose that’s a view one could take, but it’s not a view the Church was appeared inclined to take. Or, to quote myself,
if this were to be understood literally, then it would ban a huge proportion of sacred polyphony from the Mass, since composers so often repeat and interweave the “official” texts. So clearly that is not the intent. The question, then, is whether the use of a refrain is more like other repetitions and embellishments, and thus licit, or more like making things up and sticking in foreign texts, and thus illicit. It is a matter of interpretation, and it can hardly be said that there is one “obvious” answer. The Roman documents do not deal with the question. Consequently, it falls to others to decide on the right course, and that’s what the bishops did on this topic in Sing to the Lord, which was approved by 88% of the American bishops.
Like it or not, the Sing to the Lord interpretation of what can be done with the text of the Gloria is a legitimate interpretation, just as the two opposing views I mentioned above of what can be done with the Great Amen are both legitimate. If the Vatican sees any need to issue a corrective, it can do so at any moment.

However, it is different to say that one can not repeat a word or phrase before moving on, as is done in polyphony, than to go backward and repeat a whole new phrase. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Amen, amen, amen, but if we were to do “Amen, amen, amen, thanks be to God” that would be clearly wrong, as is moving around phrases in the gloria.

 

[SMHW]

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with Amen, amen, amen, but if we were to do “Amen, amen, amen, thanks be to God” that would be clearly wrong, as is moving around phrases in the gloria.

Well the words, “Thanks be to God,” are no where in the Gloria.

Your point should read something like, “but if we were to do ‘Amen, amen, amen, Glory to God in the Highest’, that would clearly be wrong.”

(For what it’s worth I don’t like that example either because I think the last word should be
“Amen” and at the moment I can’t think of a version where that is not the case.)

 

[superamazingman]

Well the words, “Thanks be to God,” are no where in the Gloria.

Your point should read something like, “but if we were to do ‘Amen, amen, amen, Glory to God in the Highest’, that would clearly be wrong.”

(For what it’s worth I don’t like that example either because I think the last word should be
“Amen” and at the moment I can’t think of a version where that is not the case.)

I was actually talking about the “great amen” and taking the “thanks be to God” from the readings.

So now we are saying that one can change the texts of the Mass, but must only move around texts within the same part of the Mass?

 

[SMHW]

I was actually talking about the “great amen” and taking the “thanks be to God” from the readings.

So now we are saying that one can change the texts of the Mass, but must only move around texts within the same part of the Mass?

That is the basic supposition that some of us hold.

But I think “move around” sounds like you are taking something from one place and leaving an empty space. I’d suggest using the words “copy or replicate” since you are leaving the original where it belongs. There will just be multiple copies of it.

 

[superamazingman]

That is the basic supposition that some of us hold.

But I think “move around” sounds like you are taking something from one place and leaving an empty space. I’d suggest using the words “copy or replicate” since you are leaving the original where it belongs. There will just be multiple copies of it.

But that is directly contrary to the church documents. No one is to change the texts of the liturgy, and no matter what semantics game you want to play with it, copying/moving/replicating texts IS changing the texts of the Mass, because the end result IS different.

Again, please find a document allowing this practice.

 

[Digitonomy]

copying/moving/replicating texts IS changing the texts of the Mass, because the end result IS different.

I thought you just said that replicating was OK in your response to MarkThompson.

 

[superamazingman]

I thought you just said that replicating was OK in your response to MarkThompson.

I was referring to replicating & moving.

There are two very different issues here. Let me clarify and expand a little bit here.

The first case is when you have music like this:

• *Amen, amen, amen. *(after the EP)
• Glória, Glória, Glória in excélsis Deo et in terra, et in terra pax homínibus bonae, bonae voluntátis. Laudámus, Laudámus te.
• Hosanna Hosanna Hosanna in the highest.

These adaptations have always been allowed by the church, and they are also an integral part of sacred polyphony, the second from the top of ideal liturgical music. In these cases, phrases are being multiplied, but only within the same sentence in the same structure. Nothing is being taken out of order, and nothing is being moved, only slight replication for musical reasons. These are perfectly acceptable, and the clear phrasing is still there. If you heard it, you could almost always tell what the original text is. There is a huge historical precedent for this, and there is nearly no reasonable argument against this practice, provided it’s used in moderation.

The second case, however, is much different. I am talking about things like this:

• *Amen, alleluia, forever and ever, forever and ever, forever and ever, amen. *(after the EP, in place of the amen)
• refrained glorias

In these cases, things are being vastly rearranging the texts. None of the examples adds external texts to the liturgy, but they are taking things and putting them where they shouldn’t be. By this precedent, we can place the Mass in whatever chronological order we’d like.

The plain truth of the matter is that when we finish the first “section” of the gloria, the missal tells us to say/sing “Lord Jesus Christ” not “Glory to God in the Highest.” In addition, there’s no historical precedent for any such thing.

Many will say that a great number of priests and bishops think it’s a-ok. I’m not naming names, but let me point out a few things:

There are times when many clergy think something is OK, only to be corrected later. For example, there have been times in church history when the heritical clergy and faithful have outnumbered the faithful clergy and faithful. Not that I’m calling these clergy heretics, but I’m just making a point. And more recently, many clergy saw nothing wrong with the overuse of EMHCs, until Rome clarified. Those things only were fixed because of the hard efforts of faithful clergy and faithful.

 

[ProVobis]

From Missale Romanum, 3rd ed. (2002), in the Institution Generalis Missalis Romani (a.k.a. General Instruction on the Roman Missal), paragraph 53:

“Inchoatur a sacerdote vel, pro opportunitate, a cantore, aut a schola, cantatur autem vel ab omnibus simul, vel apopulo alternatim cum schola, vel ab ipsa schola. Si non cantatur, recitandum est ab omnibus simul aut a duobus choris sibi invicem respondentibus.”

My personal translation: “It can be started by the priest, or, where appropriate, by the cantor, or by the choir, or sung by everyone together, or by the people alternatingly with the choir, or by the choir. If it’s not sung, it’s recited by everyone together or by two choirs responding to each other.”

Thanks for the Latin. Your translation seems reasonable. That the two choirs respond to each other in such fashion is a good catch; this would seem to be rather rare though.

 

[Phemie]

Thanks for the Latin. Your translation seems reasonable. That the two choirs respond to each other in such fashion is a good catch; this would seem to be rather rare though.

I think when it comes to recitation “choirs” means something different. You can act ‘in choir’ and it could be simply one side of the church recites one part and the other side recites another part. I would think that you would mostly find that in religious communities where you find monastic seating.