New Order of the Mass... wow!

[malphono]

Yes, but the traditional English translation is also very literal!

Pater noster qui es in caelis sanctificetur nomen tuum adveniat regnum tuum… is exactly translated by “Our Father who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come …” The roots in the English version up to this point are Germanic, as they ought to be! They form part of the basic vocabulary of English.

There is no innovation of meaning in the English version whatsoever. Art in the first line is an archaic form of “to be” precisely translating es in the Latin. Hallowed be (also archaic nowadays) exactly translates sanctificetur, and so on.

As English speakers, we can’t give up our Germanic roots just for the sake of sounding more like Latin, can we? As long as the meaning is preserved, I can’t see why you object to the English version - except merely as a matter of personal preference in that you like words with Latin roots better because they more resemble the prototype. Am I mistaken?

For what it’s worth, I agree. The English language is basically a Germanic tongue with a lot of influence from the Norman French ( remember William of Normandy aka “the conqueror”).

The word “art” in English is the second person singular of the the verb “to be” and while it may be unused colloquially, it’s still in the dictionary. The word “hallowed” is also interesting: it is similarly “archaic” but with a twist: the usage comes up every year on Halloween aka “All Hallows Eve”, i.e., the eve of All Saints.

When translating from the Latin, it seems to me that the more classical usage of the recipient language should be used. If nothing else, it would help to instill a sense of reverence in translated liturgical texts which I find lacking in what the ICEL has previously foisted upon the English speaking world.

 

[JReducation]

And:

I’m having a hard time reconciling these two opinions that you hold. From what I understand, many people in the Andes are extremely devout; perhaps you found this to be the case. Which goes to show that “Reverence is not just in the language. It’s in the heart of the believer” as you put it. So is it really necessary to latinize the language or make it as close to the original as possible?

This is very true. The indigenous people are much more devout than the Whites and the Mestizos. Though they bring with them traces of pagan reiligions that still linger. This it was very important the the liturgical language convery the truths of the faith as precisely as possible to minimize the intrusion of paganism into the liturgy, as it already is very palpable in the culture.

You can’t Latinize the Quechua language, but you can select words and phrases that express as closely as possible the truths expressed in Latin. As to the EF taking root among the Andean people, we can forget that for the time being. So the use of Latin is not an option. They are a proud people and have long memories. As long as there is a single white Hispanic in South America, there will always be a rejection of anything that is remotely European. the white Hispanics are very European or very American. The Native Americans in these counries mistrust both cultures. Some of the white Hispanics like the EF, but the indigenous people avoid it. Therefore the EF is usually empty.

The only reason that the Native Americans adopted Catholicism was because the Franciscan and Dominican Friars gained their trust and did the bes they could to protect them from the White European Catholics. Therefore, laws were created to protect the rights of the natives, unlike the North American colonies where the Protestant European clergy did little for the natives.

Here’s my point of view: I prefer the EF and attend that liturgy exclusively when I’m able to (for the moment, every Sunday). I know Latin so I understand the prayers and responses.

When I attend the OF, it doesn’t bother me one iota that I respond: “Lord I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” instead of a literal, word-for-word translation of “Domine non sum dignus, ut intres…” Sure the meaning is slightly different, but the sentiment in English is just as worthy of expression even if it does not correspond to the centurion’s words.

“Et cum spiritu tuo” has a particular cadence when chanted in Latin that is difficult to duplicate. “And also with you” comes closer to a sung cadence to my ear than “And with thy spirit,” which sounds just plain clunky in English.

I agree with you. The “thy” has to go. We don’t speak English that way and it sounds too awkward, unless you’re celebrating mass for a group of Amish Catholics. Even in Spanish they got rid of the “thy, thee, thou” and use the informal “tu” (you).

Maybe that is the problem: the English prayers and responses are typically said in the OF, not sung as in the EF High Mass. Perhaps we ought to sing more in the vernacular Mass, period.

That can only be imposed on diocesan priests. You can’t impose that on religioius. Some religious orders forbid the Gregorian Chant. In my own community the branches of the ancient observance do not chant. We have never chanted since our foundation 800 years ago. We do use hymns and plainsong, which sounds like chant. It’s not the formal and elaborate Gregorian chant from the Benedictine tradition. Francis and Clare both wrote in the rule that all liturgy was to be recited.

There is no doubt in my mind however, that “for all” needs to be changed to “for many.” I can’t understand any justification for changing the meaning so significantly in this instance.

The problem here is that the word “multus” in Latin has two meanings. It can mean many or it can mean multitude. The word multitude sounded awkward. It was replaced with “all”. We understand that Christ died for all. But to be more faithful to the two versions in scripture, the use of the words should coincide with the Gospels.

JR

 

[VAC]

My priest and I got into a discussion about the English (Norvus Ordo) vs. The Tridentine Mass and he told me some of the highlights of the new order that was approved for the Mass. He also told me where to find it and I thought I would share…
Check out the changes to the pennetintial rite…

And the Gloria is closer to the Latin…

Wow just Wow!!! So many changes!!! What do you guys think???
I love the new responses!!!

As a choir leader and musician at mass I am thinking YIIKES!!! so much music to be rewritten, learned and taught.

I hope I get my hands on musical settings of these in enough time to do them justice!!!

 

[JReducation]

I’m so glad that we have Capuchin Francican friars in our parish. We only have to worry about the hymns. The parts of the mass are always recited and is the Liturgy of the Hours in its entirety.

JR

 

[t68ware]

My priest and I got into a discussion about the English (Norvus Ordo) vs. The Tridentine Mass and he told me some of the highlights of the new order that was approved for the Mass. He also told me where to find it and I thought I would share…

usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/OrdoMissaeWhiteBook.pdf

Notice that the response will no longer be And also with you in the Introductory Rite…

Check out the changes to the pennetintial rite…

And the Gloria is closer to the Latin…

Wow just Wow!!! So many changes!!! What do you guys think???
I love the new responses!!!

WOW! I love it!! The changes are great!

 

[benedictgal]

As a choir leader and musician at mass I am thinking YIIKES!!! so much music to be rewritten, learned and taught.

I hope I get my hands on musical settings of these in enough time to do them justice!!!

No need for a stampede (couldn’t help it–the Longhorns beat OU today )!

That is why the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments granted the recognitio for the translations of the Order of the Mass and released same so as to give both the faithful and composers enough time to get ready.

What I would do if I were you would be to have a gradual review session and prepare your choirs as far as the texts are concerned. The CDWDS was very, very specific that paraphrasing and changing of the texts was not allowed, so composers like Marty Haugen, David Haas and Bob Hurd now have to be completely faithful to the text or their works may run the risk of not being used.

 

[BlestOne]

As a choir leader and musician at mass I am thinking YIIKES!!! so much music to be rewritten, learned and taught.

I hope I get my hands on musical settings of these in enough time to do them justice!!!

Can you switch places with our Music director??? Her attitude is to see how far she can push things and when she is reined in, she acts like a petulant child.

 

[The_Prodigal]

Some religious orders forbid the Gregorian Chant. In my own community the branches of the ancient observance do not chant. We have never chanted since our foundation 800 years ago. We do use hymns and plainsong, which sounds like chant. It’s not the formal and elaborate Gregorian chant from the Benedictine tradition. Francis and Clare both wrote in the rule that all liturgy was to be recited.

Plainsong is chant, no?

 

[VAC]

Can you switch places with our Music director??? Her attitude is to see how far she can push things and when she is reined in, she acts like a petulant child.

We seriously should live close enough to attend the same parish!!!

 

[bpbasilphx]

I recently heard a traditional Catholic say “Holy Ghost”. Where did that come from? I know that it was used in English before the changes in the liturgy, but it was also an incorrect translation from the Latin to the English. Why bring it back?

**The Greek word PNEVMA means breath of wind, but also means “spirit” (in the Latin sense).

In contemporary English “Ghost” has aqcuired the meaning of “spook” (fantasma)–but is originally the cognate of “gust”–as in a breath of wind.**

 

[jfoges]

I’m just curious. How did the English translation get so messed up? My native language is Spanish. The proposed translation is the one that we have used in Spanish since the vernacular was introduced into the liturgy. The Spanish Conference of Bishops and the Episcopal Conference of Latin American Bishops hammered this out more than 30 years ago.

Was that an American problem or one of the English speaking world?

Another question . . . I recently heard a traditional Catholic say “Holy Ghost”. Where did that come from? I know that it was used in English before the changes in the liturgy, but it was also an incorrect translation from the Latin to the English. Why bring it back?

In Spanish, French, Italian, Portugese, and Latin the term is Holy Spirit. Ghost is a different word. The Latin word for ghost would be closer to the English word for phantasm (sp?). In the Latin languages Holy Spirit is translated as Espiritu Santo. While Holy Ghost is translated as Fantasma Santo. Fantasma is something like Casper.

Fraternally,

JR

I don’t thjink Holy Ghost can be considered an “incorrect translation”. Translation is not an exact science and there can be multiple words that mean a word in another meaning.

 

[pnewton]

Can you switch places with our Music director??? Her attitude is to see how far she can push things and when she is reined in, she acts like a petulant child.

We should consider us all reined in, although I prefer the analogy of a sheep to a horse. The one thing that has been made clear so far is that divergence from the specific words will not be allowed, not that it ever was.

 

[pnewton]

The current form gets the points across just fine.

Yes, it is easier to understand currently, but if it gets the wrong point (or a false point) across easier, then it is worse than doing a poor job of communication, while maintaining accuracy.

 

[BSHoop96]

The bold is mine. I understand that German uses Geistes. But my problem with the traditional English Speaking Catholic who uses Holy Ghost is that he or she is not preserving the Latin term, but a translation from the Latin to the German to English.

If the idea is to preserve tradition, stick to the source. If it was written in Latin, go from Latint to English.
JR

Now JR, that would just make too much sense…

 

[The_Prodigal]

That can only be imposed on diocesan priests. You can’t impose that on religioius. Some religious orders forbid the Gregorian Chant. In my own community the branches of the ancient observance do not chant. We have never chanted since our foundation 800 years ago. We do use hymns and plainsong, which sounds like chant. It’s not the formal and elaborate Gregorian chant from the Benedictine tradition. Francis and Clare both wrote in the rule that all liturgy was to be recited.

Are you saying, Franciscans never chant?

Could you provide a reference to the rule proscribing chant for Franciscans?

 

[JReducation]

Plainsong is chant, no?

Yes, it’s a form of chant. The prohibition in some religious communities is Gregorian Chant. There are many forms of chant. Gregorian chant is very eleborate and very beautiful, but can be very difficult to sing unless you’re well trained in it.

Some people confuse plainsong and Gregorian chant. They’re not the same. When you hear a priest chant at mass, you’re usually hearing plainsong, not Gregorian chant. If you listen to a recording of monks from any of the Benedictine orders you hear Gregorian chant.

Among those orders are the Benedictines, Cistercians, Trappists, Carthusians, and many cloistered communities.

Some of these religious communities, such as the Carthusians will not admit anyone who cannot sing Gregorian chant, because it is their vocation to spend their lives praising God in this manner.

When the Franciscan family was born in 1209, Christ revealed to Francis that it was to be a lay brotherhood. It was to be open to secular priests, lay men and women, celibate and married. To bring together this new family, that did not have the monastic background, Gregorian chant had to be sacrificed. Plainsong and Italian hymns replaced Gregorian chant at mass and during the Liturgy of the Hours. To this day, the rules that Francis and Clare wrote are very clear that the Liturgy of the Hours MUST be recited, not chanted and the mass must be solemn, but the music is simple. The four rules were confirmed and sealed by five popes so that they cannot be changed, except by a pope.

Later, other founders adopted the same policies, such as Francis de Sales when he founded the Vistation Nuns and Vincent de Paul when he founded the Daughters of Charity and the Congregation of the Mission. In Vincent’s case he wanted his two communities to be secular communities. To this day, the Vincentians and the Daughters of Charity are not religious orders. They are secular associatons. Therefore, they do not practice the monastic tradition of Gregorian chant, along with the Franciscans and others.

This is one reason why the Motu Proprio was very careful to specify that the Extraordinary Form is not imposed on religious and secular institutes of consecrated life. The idea is to preserve the unity of the liturgy in the Church and the distinctive charism of these communities, diversity and unity at the same time. There is a reference made to oratories and religious houses and the authority of the Major Superiors.

In terms of correcting the mistakes in the ICEL translation, that is applicable to everyone, because it does not infringe on the character of a community or on the will of the founder. The Church is always very careful to protect the holy founders’ wishes, while promoting solemn liturgy and unity in worship.

I’m glad I’m not the Congregation of Liturgy and Sacraments, because it must be a tough balancing act.

Hope this helps, if not . . . hope it makes for good reading.

Fraternally,

JR

 

[Aramis]

Plainsong is chant, no?

Plainsong is a type of chant, having established melodies, but not fixed rhythms nor harmonies. Early Gregorian Chant and Carpethian Prostipinia are both plainsong… the rhythms notated are not explicitly counted, but reflective of the relative size of the sylables (and 8th notes generally reflect multiple pitches on one note).

Some forms of chant have annotated rhythms without annotated pitch. Later chant settings, like Kievan Chant, are not plainsong, having harmonies.

Technically, much of rap music is chant. But it is definitely not plainsong.

Certain technical definitions of chant exclude plainsong, since the working definition of chant is rhythmic recitation of words, often pitched, and when pitched, using one or two notes…

Plainsong is the far musical end of chant, and some of it is past the edge.

Also note that Late Gregorian Chant technically isn’t chant! It is polyphonic choral music derived from the earlier chant.

 

[The_Prodigal]

Hope this helps, if not . . . hope it makes for good reading.

Fraternally,

JR

Thanks, it helps!

 

[The_Prodigal]

I am new to chant.

Would the setting of the Mass known as the *Missa de angelis *qualify as plainsong? I don’t hear any polyphony when our choir sings it.

 

[Aramis]

I am new to chant.

Would the setting of the Mass known as the *Missa de angelis *qualify as plainsong? I don’t hear any polyphony when our choir sings it.

I listed to a sample at imeem.com/llbreshx/music/3G3IlmyW/cantos_gregorianos_missa_de_angelis/
No, but it’s pretty close. The use of melismas (multiple notes on a single syllable) is just a hair outside the scope of plainchant, tho’ it is very close.

Most non-musicians would probably call it plainchant, despite it’s being outside the technical definition.

It’s really close, but is not, plainchant.