Gloria

[MarkThompson]

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.

No, but one can certainly think that it is indirectly contrary to the documents. Then again, somebody else might also think that “Amen, amen, amen” is indirectly contrary to the documents inasmuch as saying something three times instead of once constitutes a change.

On the other hand, you are quite correct that structuring a Gloria to have a refrain is a different kind of change than simply repeating something right after it has already been sung. Yes, indeed. What does not automatically follow, however, is that this difference is sufficient to place the practice out of bounds. You say, “Yes, one kind of change is okay, but this is too big a change. Therefore, it is not okay.” That’s begging the question.

Neither will constant demands for “a document allowing this practice” help matters. Rather, they reveal misconceptions about the way Church law and praxis operate.

 

[ProVobis]

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.

That makes sense. I don’t know how typical it is in Europe but our parish in London had some seats facing each other (the middle aisle) instead of the altar. I think this is what you’re referring to. Each side can then respond to the other.

 

[Phemie]

That makes sense. I don’t know how typical it is in Europe but our parish in London had some seats facing each other (the middle aisle) instead of the altar. I think this is what you’re referring to. Each side can then respond to the other.

Yes, that’s the type of seating I mean. That’s exactly why that seating is arranged that way. I haven’t seen many, if any, churches like that but I experienced that type of seating arrangement for Morning and Evening Prayer when not celebrated in church.

 

[pnewton]

I mean no disrespect, but I don’t understand what you’re saying.

That is why, that whileI do not mind discussing differences, I have no desire to convince anyone, or have them try and convince me.

 

[liturgyluver]

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.

I think you are right and that the flexibility is allowed through Episcopal authority by the following paragraph in Musicam Sacram:

1. It will be for the competent territorial authority to decide whether certain vernacular texts set to music which have been handed down from former times, can in fact be used, even though they may not conform in all details with the legitimately approved versions of the liturgical texts

 

[wmw]

newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm

I’ve decided to read the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia here is a relevant excerpt:

The Church has frequently legislated concerning even the smallest details of the liturgy. In connexion with the Mass, the centre of Catholic worship, the service of various arts are utilized — architecture, with its decorative and plastic elaborations, symbolic action at the altar with the accompanying vestments and sacred vessels, the significant liturgical prayers, and finally the chant carried on the waves of the organ. All these, including the music, are regulated by ecclesiastical precepts. The intonations of the celebrant and his ministers, the Orations, Epistle, Gospel, Preface, Pater Noster, Dominus vobiscum, Ite missa est, must be unaccompanied-at most the pitch may be given. The responses of the choir or the people may be accompanied on the organ. The choir sings the Kyrie, Gloria, and Credo. In these as in all liturgical texts, the omission, transposition, alteration, substitution, or awkward combination of the words (even in inserted pieces, e.g. the Ave Maria at the Offertory, after the proper offertory has been recited) is forbidden. On the other hand, the occasional repetition of words, as an artistic necessity, is permitted. It is allowed in most cases for sufficient reason (e.g. fatigue or inability of the singers) to recite in an audible voice certain texts with subdued organ accompaniment, or to alternate recitation with singing.

This seems to the point that the first part of the Gloria should not be repeated as a refrain. I’m beginning to see that it is possible that it is “wrong”, but I would like more direct quotes from Church documents.

 

[pnewton]

newadvent.org/cathen/10648a.htm

I’ve decided to read the opinion of the Catholic Encyclopedia here is a relevant excerpt:

I love New Advent and it is a great resource. However, it has been around for a long time. If you go to the bottom of the page, you will not that the citations, all three come from 1911.

 

[wmw]

I love New Advent and it is a great resource. However, it has been around for a long time. If you go to the bottom of the page, you will not that the citations, all three come from 1911.

Yes, my original thought on this whole subject was that there isn’t enough in the documentation and that the nuances were just up to the individual discretion of the local Bishop.

The indication here is that the rules were very strict at the turn of the 20th century; so, now the **burden of proof **in my mind has switched. The folks arguing the change to a less strict allowance of the Gloria in a refrained format would have to show documents that would supersede the strict rules rather than just a lack of documents and/or precise wording indicating freedom in this area of liturgical music.

 

[pnewton]

The folks arguing the change to a less strict allowance of the Gloria in a refrained format would have to show documents that would supersede the strict rules rather than just a lack of documents and/or precise wording indicating freedom in this area of liturgical music.

Fortunately for me, all I have to do is take instruction from my diocese and let my priest approve the choice.

 

[wmw]

Well that’s a bad attitude, but I’m not doing anything more.

 

[pnewton]

Well that’s a bad attitude, but I’m not doing anything more.

Gee, that is rather judgemental of you, especially since that is the Catholic position, namely that the bishop has authority over the liturgy and implementing the GIRM. The priest is the authority in the parish. Why would anyone question him if actual abuse is not happening, except in accord to one’s own opinion?

I think it is great if you do not ever want a Gloria with a refrain unless you see this written in some document as explicitly allowable. It is just not *my *opinion.

 

[wmw]

I think a good attitude would be to care about your Priest and Bishop following the documented rubrics of the Mass. If this is judgmental then I’m all for being judgmental.

This isn’t about what I want. This isn’t that big a deal to me, but if the rules are being broken I find that disturbing no matter the gravity of the situation.

I’m not doing anything more or need I. It’s not my place to confront a Pastor or Bishop on this. It’s really up to them to set things right. If I thought this was something more important and I had more documentation on it I’d speak up. I can see others opinion being that a refrained Gloria isn’t something that should be part of the liturgy and they need to speak up against it, but I’m not there yet.

I thought the clarification of the burden of proof to determine who’s right in the lack of further documents in this argument of “is a refrained Gloria allowed by the rubrics of the Mass?” would be important and send anyone fervent about wanting a refrained Gloria to back their case better or face the prospect of the 1911 rules still being in force. [edited]

 

[CharlesinCenCA]

If poster Mark Thompson is one and the same as he who posts at the Musica Sacra Forum, his wisdom as stated-

“On the other hand, you are quite correct that structuring a Gloria to have a refrain is a different kind of change than simply repeating something right after it has already been sung. Yes, indeed. What does not automatically follow, however, is that this difference is sufficient to place the practice out of bounds. You say, “Yes, one kind of change is okay, but this is too big a change. Therefore, it is not okay.” That’s begging the question.”

• is quite well taken.

Trying to fathom through juridical documents, papal and episcopal conference encyclicals, encyclopedias (decidely “NOT legislative”) borders closely, IMO, to becoming a fools errand. When we English worshippers were all provided the opportunity to visit this issue head on with the promulgation of the new translation, if one was thorough one would have recognized that coming from the major publishing houses as well as smaller venue sources down to the parish level, were many more “sung through” versions of the Gloria “hymn.” Great! If they pass all the other criteria your local DM/pastor/bishop sets as standards.
But even at CMAA websites and live “seminar” events, it is generally recognized that even legislative documents pertaining to liturgy maintain, if not insist upon a certain proportion of ambiguity in many areas. So, as Mr. Thompson states, if you insist the piper play the tune exactly as written out of pharisaical obedience to only one perspective of licit practice, ie. Gregorian Latin chant Mass versions, then be consistent and don’t ever try to justify using a so-called “concert” Mass setting actually written for liturgy by Michael Haydn, Schubert or…? ever again at a real Mass. That may actually be my preference, but I know of serious scholars who can defend the classical Mass on liturgical grounds. And a classical Mass generally sets the texts not only with repetitive text phrases, but occasionally with overlapping texts among different voice parts. Nope, out the window if we’re strict observers.
I’m glad to live and minister in an era of evolution where we’ve been provided the opportunities to retool our thinking and discover options that neither obfuscate the texts, nor binds them to banality by stringently enforced dictum. YMMV

 

[pnewton]

I think a good attitude would be to care about your Priest and Bishop following the documented rubrics of the Mass. If this is judgmental then I’m all for being judgmental.

This isn’t about what I want. This isn’t that big a deal to me, but if the rules are being broken I find that disturbing no matter the gravity of the situation.

But they are following the rubrics and no rules are being broken. A broken rule is when the Church says don’t do X and the person does X in the same manner and situation for which it was intended. Or the Church says you must do X and the person does not do X in the same manner and situation for which it was intended. I do not agree with your burden of proof and have never seen this in Church teaching. How big the issue is does in fact matter. When you get into enough minutiae then one has to except the Church does not dictate everything to such detail but allows the bishop primacy in implementation. One may use the key of B flat, harmony or 3/4 time, even thought there is no document approving this.

I have this same issue on other common practices that are done in which people here have objected. The bishops are not ignorant as to the practices and the implementation of the GIRM, nor is the Holy See. If something gets out of line, we will have the issue addressed and a decision made. We have the example of Summorum Pontificum that addressed this very issue and stopped practices deemed contrary to dignity of the Mass.

 

[pnewton]

Trying to fathom through juridical documents, papal and episcopal conference encyclicals, encyclopedias (decidely “NOT legislative”) borders closely, IMO, to becoming a fools errand.

This is why we have an authority hierarchy in the Church and specific people with the authority to do implement the liturgy. I know it goes against the American way of thinking where everyone decides what is right based on their own opinion and interpretation. While I applaud those that try and learn all they can (I myself try to read everything on the subject) at the end of the day, authority determines liturgical practice. If we go back to the first question, is it wrong, you can no get anymore accuate than to say that if the bishops says it is wrong, then it is wrong. If he does not, then it is not wrong.

I too have found Mark Thompson to be articulate and balanced in his postings here.

 

[MarkThompson]

If poster Mark Thompson is one and the same as he who posts at the Musica Sacra Forum, his wisdom as stated-

No, but we are twins. However, one is good and one is evil. Also, one can never tell a lie, while the other can never tell the truth.

So, as Mr. Thompson states, if you insist the piper play the tune exactly as written out of pharisaical obedience to only one perspective of licit practice, ie. Gregorian Latin chant Mass versions, then be consistent and don’t ever try to justify using a so-called “concert” Mass setting actually written for liturgy by Michael Haydn, Schubert or…? ever again at a real Mass.

That’s not quite the point I’m making. Rather, it appears to me that (1) this issue is a question of interpretation, not a question on which the Church has foreclosed debate by ordering one resolution or the other, and (2) both interpretations (the rules allow refrain Glorias; the rules don’t allow refrain Glorias) are within the realm of reason, based on history, analogy, the documents, and Vaticanology. If the Vatican were to decide that a refrain Gloria were not permissible, this would not require a change in legislation, merely an appropriate clarification of the existing legislation. Until then, it remains an open question, with the highest-level guidance, to my knowledge, being that found in Sing to the Lord.

 

[wmw]

No it’s not a case about interpretations. The GIRM is the GIRM, but there are Exceptions properly disseminated via documented policy. The addition of refrains for the Gloria are allowed in the United States:

**In the United States, we have the option of using a setting that has a refrain. The permission to do so was given by the bishops of the United States in their Policy for the Approval of Sung Settings of Liturgical Texts: “The addition of refrains to the Glory to God is permitted, provided the refrains encourage congregational participation.” The bishops’ more recent document, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship, reiterates this but also clarifies the bigger picture for us: “While through-composed settings of the Gloria give clearest expression to the text, the addition of refrains is permitted, provided the refrains encourage congregational participation” (149). **

Glad not to have picked a winner in this debate until the all the facts were found.

 

[CharlesinCenCA]

Deo gratias, wmw, our work here is done!
MT, of course I realized my example in extremis wasn’t within the locus of your point, but it’s an interesting spice for POV in discussions, especially around CMAA folks!
Interesting about your twin circumstance, I have one as well. Only he kept the “Good Charles” locked up for nigh on 40 years of DM-ing! Now that I’m fweeeeeee…I don’t confine “Bad Charles” to the dungeon with the door locked, if he chooses to violate that parole he knows he’s jeopardizing both our eternal dispositions, and we’re long in the tooth!
Have a great 20th Ordinary!
C

 

[CHRISTINE77]

I’m not sure how I feel about this. We just got a new priest and he is VERY traditional, everything is chanted, and the songs are classical or plainsong.

Before we got him, we sang the refrain of Glory to God in the Highest, four times, between divisions of the prayer. We had a more charismatic type of service, with songs like “Be Not Afraid” and “On Eagles Wings”, and more musical Santus and Grand Amen. Now, it is much more staid and traditional. While I do like tradition, I think some of the joy has gone out of the church. I’m a Baby Boomer and I just like the songs that were created during the 70’s and 80’s.

 

[pnewton]

I’m not sure how I feel about this. We just got a new priest and he is VERY traditional, everything is chanted, and the songs are classical or plainsong.

Before we got him, we sang the refrain of Glory to God in the Highest, four times, between divisions of the prayer. We had a more charismatic type of service, with songs like “Be Not Afraid” and “On Eagles Wings”, and more musical Santus and Grand Amen. Now, it is much more staid and traditional. While I do like tradition, I think some of the joy has gone out of the church. I’m a Baby Boomer and I just like the songs that were created during the 70’s and 80’s.

You said you just got a new priest. Give some time for adjustment if you do not want to find another parish. Also, there is nothing wrong with expressing your feelings.

This situation is exactly while I prefer gradual change, in whatever direction it goes and for whatever reason. I simply doesn’t have the emotional gut punch if things are changed more gradually.