C
Corki
Guest
They were **licit **according to the ICEL and the bishops but they were not correct. Even the new translation isn’t perfect but it is light years ahead of what we have now.
- Status
They were **licit **according to the ICEL and the bishops but they were not correct. Even the new translation isn’t perfect but it is light years ahead of what we have now.
P
ProVobis
Guest
To some extent. “Gay,” for example, means something different. But I think you missed my point. The bishops thought the translations were correct in 1970. Being Polish-taught and after having studied Latin and some linguistics, I personally am not enamored with any English translation, especially one coming from the Church of England of 500 years ago. I have a list of reasons why.
I agree. This is perhaps the unintended consequences of putting the entire Mass in vernacular where Poles, hispanics, Anglophones, and those of other nationalities hardly see each other in church anymore. I believe Latin should be at least part of all Catholic Masses.
P
ProVobis
Guest
But wasn’t it today’s bishops who made the determination that the translation the 1973 bishops approved was incorrect? What if bishops think 40 years from now today’s bishops were incorrect to use the old Anglican translations; wouldn’t they employ still another translating team to use something more Catholic to even better convey the Latin? For example use “God IS with you” instead of “God BE with you.” I wouldn’t say light years ahead when it’s still 500 years back and no first year Latin student would translate it the Anglican way.
That said, I’m glad that at least the “for all” has been replaced. But what if they decide the more correct translation is “for you and for THE many” and is truer to the Latin?
And that’s all I’m going to say on this thread.
M
msumike55
Guest
That’s a great distinction and I’m glad you pointed that out. This is a concept that doesn’t sink in at first for me, originally coming from a non-Catholic background. It’s an intricacy with which Im still getting familiar–some of the music being hymns and other music being sung elements of the Mass.
The changes in the missal can seem to be contrary to the “continuing ages old church” concept for someone like me who’s still getting accustomed to the Liturgy and liked the idea that things have been done the same way for a long time. I realize that it’s only our translation that is changing and not the Latin basis where the translation comes from. The problems with Protestant churches lacking uniformity in theology and lacking unity in general is one of the things that made me start looking deeper into Catholicism. While they may have initially separated with a similar trajectory, they continue to splinter and veer further and further off course. So, that being said… while the missal changes at first made me feel uneasy and made me think “here we go again,” I’m actually really thrilled that there is a dedication to making sure the translation is as accurate as possible. I also think it’s pretty awesome that the changes will be made in all Catholic churches in the US. That probably doesn’t seem like a big deal if you grew up Catholic, but it really is amazing (I cant imagine all the congregations of any Protestant church getting on the same page about almost anything) and is one of the things I love about the Catholic Church. There’s a unity that only comes with having a centralized authority with the Papacy.
Sorry for rambling, but thanks for the discussion.
Peace be with you. Or with your spirit. Or with thy spirit. Or um, er, you know what I mean
L
liturgyluver
Guest
But the revision to the texts have not been made because of language differences that may or may not have arisen in the last 40 years. We are told that the changes are to ensure that this new translation is a more faithful translation to the original Latin. The language therefore is more traditional (eg With your Spirit, through my most grevious fault) rather than more contemporary, and is more closely aligned with the original translations in other European countries (though as you say, these are also being reviewed).
In a separate reply you mentioned the Church of England: The CofE still happily uses the original 1662 prayerbook at Choral Evensong (which is a conflation of Vespers and Compline), and the beautiful language is etched on many memories thanks to the English choral tradition. In 1980 modern language texts were introduced, and parishes have the option of being able to use the original prayerbook, or a modern translation (the latter either in traditonal or contemporary English). The contemporary language version of the CofE Holy Communion services is virtually the same as the original Roman Rite translation, but now, of course, the new Roman Rite translation aligns it more to the CofE prayer book - but there are still some differences.
O
Ohana
Guest
Well, you all sound more knowledgable than I am. I have two pieces of information to support my statement. I attended a workshop for choir members a few years ago and the priest used the Shubert to illustrate why it was one of the compositions not allowed to be performed in church any more. His reason was that the repetiveness of the wording was such that the prayer did not make sense and was more a word salad. When I was young, it often was used as a wedding Mass hymn shile the bride went to the Blessed Mothers altar. It was banned in my home parish when I was a teen, and has later been refused by the pastor at three other churches we have attended. I think the Norbert is the one used now.
I
I_Thirst
Guest
The nice thing about Latin (other than it is the mother tongue of our Church) is that we don’t have to worry about translating it.
Note that Gregorian chant can be done outside of a Latin Mass – it is supposed to have the pride of place (not hymns or Protestant songs) in all our Masses. If one wants to hear Protestant liturgical music, one should attend Protestant churches.
I’d rather hear chant than the Protestant-style music that is currently in vogue. The new translations will bring new words, but they are being set to some of the most banal music mankind has ever composed. I hope your parish fares better than mine.
Thank God we have Daily Mass.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
I don’t dispute what you say, but there is no definitive ban on anthems like the Ave Maria. It sounds like what has happened here is that local discretion has been applied to ban the piece. I might add that this local discretion has been used a lot since Vatican II to surpress great music that is not felt to be appropriate. But as other posters have said the Ave Maria is not a mass text, and is under no prohibition from being performed in church.
Many consider it the greatest setting of the Ave Maria (though I personally prefer Gounard’s setting) - so tell your priest to let the choir perform it on December 8th!!
O
Ohana
Guest
II like chant in moderation. I also love some of the music that is in 4 part harmony. Most of all, I like when the congregation really sings! There is something to the idea that to sing once is to pray twice.
We re to Latin. I studied it, but it did not help me understand the Mass. Yes, I sort of understood what was going on but . . . With the vernacular Mass, I can participate at a much deeper level. I find also, that when the Mass is said in another language, the same parts are there, so I can say them to myself ( so as not to be disruptive) in English.
Going back to Latin would be like being excluded.
I
I_Thirst
Guest
Mass is praying to God – not to your neighbor. It doesn’t matter whether we understand it or not, for there is something deeper and bigger going on than our own limited apprehension can imagine or understand.
C
Corki
Guest
While I like this priest’s reasoning, it is just opinon. There is no rule that songs that are “word salads,” that don’t make sense or that are repetitive are not allowed at Mass. If that were the case, half of the “Gather” song book would be gone. (not that that would be a bad thing)
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Not to mention 90% of the great polyphonic settings of the Mass! Have you ever just looked at the “lyrics” of, say, a typical Baroque Kyrie? They usually go something like this: “Kyrie eleison, eleison, eleison, Kyrie, Kyrie, Kyrie, eleison, Kyrie, eleison, eleison, eleison, Kyrie, Kyrie eleison. Christe, Christe eleison . . . .” And that’s only in one voice part!
G
gh4
Guest
When I first heard some of the new Mass Settings, I was so sad. But our church has chosen an entirely new Mass Setting that we have never done before. I cringed when I first heard it and hated it. Then we began to practice it at choir practice. I Now love the Mass of Wisdom, it’s so beautiful when our small choir sings it. I love playing it. We will eventually go back to some of the Mass settings that we loved previously, the Mass of Light, the Heritage Mass and so forth, but meanwhile, I love the new music in our new Mass setting. It may take a while, but eventually we’ll all have our new favorites. 
S
Sarabande
Guest
Or just look at the text of a typical Palestrina mass setting.I think this ban is more of a local phenomenon and individual pastor decision. I remember older music colleagues of mine talk about how in the 1980s there was this push to get rid of doing any kind of setting of “Ave Maria” and the presentation of the Blessed Mother during the wedding. I don’t know if this was country-wide, but it was something that happened in my particular diocese. They were trying to get rid of any kind of what they believed was Marian worship. But it soon fell to the wayside and it was determined that the Schubert setting of “Ave Maria” along with other settings were permitted. They also told me a lot of the priests who were against it in the first place, were also the ones who were trying to get rid of the “old” music in general from the mass. There have been a rare few priests who have kept this old idea, though, and once in the great blue moon, you will find a pastor who won’t allow it today.
But I can assure you, as someone who has been cantoring for weddings for the past 10 years in more parishes than I can count (I think it is reaching about 150 churches now) almost every weekend in numerous states and dioceses, the Schubert “Ave Maria” is very much permitted and used at the majority of the weddings. The Bach-Gounod comes second and the Caccini comes third. I personally chose Gabriel Faure’s setting when I got married. It’s very prayerful to me and I love Faure as well as music by French composers in general. The Schubert is beautiful (I love singing his lieder), but when you sing it practically every weekend for a wedding, it’s nice to do something different.
youtube.com/watch?v=ZSHlDCtdp5s&feature=related
P.S. There is a resetting of the Ave Maria text for the Schubert so that the entire prayer is sung within the first “verse” rather than two verses of it. Now, what I have seen with priests is that they don’t want the entire prayer sung for the Schubert. For some they actually have never paid attention to the fact that the version usually sung is just the first half the prayer. But for most of them, the quicker the wedding is over the better for them. (A lot of them are jaded in regards to weddings and just want to them done and over with) and the only time I’ve seen them permit the entire prayer being sung is if the bride insists on it and tells him she has a special devotion to the Blessed Mother, which I advise my clients to tell them if they do have a special devotion and want the entire prayer sung.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
Seriously? these are the hymns? It only makes me wanting to go to the Latin Mass even more.
M
MarkThompson
Guest
Don’t let the door hit ya on the way out!
L
liturgyluver
Guest
Of course these are not hymns! They are mass settings - and only 1 set of about 50 that are now available.
F
FatHead
Guest
i see your point but it isnt quite the same thing as we are discussing. that is polyphony. this is not.
- Status