New Roman Missal and the Mass of Creation II

[Asperges_Me]

giamusic.com/pdf/MoC_article2.pdf

According to the article above, there will be a revised Mass of Creation by Haugen for the New Roman Missal. Has anyone seen it yet? If so, will Haugen still be changing the words to the Missal. I was wondering like for the Agnus Dei, since the words aren’t going to be changing from the current missal to the new missal, will there still be the “Jesus, Lamb of God” instead of just “Lamb of God”? Are there still the tropes “Bread of Life”, “Prince of Peace”, etc? Or have they been done away with? Has anyone seen any guidance from their diocese that deals with this situation of using musical settings with words that are not faithful to the new missal?

 

[benedictgal]

giamusic.com/pdf/MoC_article2.pdf

According to the article above, there will be a revised Mass of Creation by Haugen for the New Roman Missal. Has anyone seen it yet? If so, will Haugen still be changing the words to the Missal. I was wondering like for the Agnus Dei, since the words aren’t going to be changing from the current missal to the new missal, will there still be the “Jesus, Lamb of God” instead of just “Lamb of God”? Are there still the tropes “Bread of Life”, “Prince of Peace”, etc? Or have they been done away with? Has anyone seen any guidance from their diocese that deals with this situation of using musical settings with words that are not faithful to the new missal?

When the CDWDS releasd the revised translation of the Order of the Mass, then-prefect Francis Cardinal Arinze, included this letter wherein he states that:

It will likewise facilitate the devising of musical settings for the parts of the Mass, bearing in mind the criteria set forth in the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, n. 60, which requires that the musical settings of liturgical texts use only the actual approved texts and never be paraphrased.

Here is the actual section of Liturgiam Authenticam that he quotes:

1. A great part of the liturgical texts are composed with the intention of their being sung by the priest celebrant, the deacon, the cantor, the people, or the choir. For this reason, the texts should be translated in a manner that is suitable for being set to music. Still, in preparing the musical accompaniment, full account must be taken of the authority of the text itself. Whether it be a question of the texts of Sacred Scripture or of those taken from the Liturgy and already duly confirmed, paraphrases are not to be substituted with the intention of making them more easily set to music, nor may hymns considered generically equivalent be employed in their place.39

Thus, composers and publishers are bound to obey the Church’s rules governing setting the official texts of the Mass to music. During the Society for Catholic Liturgy Conference that I attended in Houston this past weekend, the issue was raised and we were told that deviances and variances were not allowed.

Bear in mind that Liturgiam Authenticam came out in 2001. We have had this document out for nearly a decade. Publishers and composers had 10 years to make the necessary corrections. It makes me wonder just where the quality control is.

 

[TheMc]

I was very disappointed when our parish began using the MoC during this Ordinary Time (we usually switch settings every time the liturgical season switches) and despite whatever Haugen wants to say about how it can be adaptable to any situation, the changes in the text don’t do anything useful, in fact, they are simply distracting! I can’t wait for Lent! Last year we used Missa Jubilate Deo, and I think we might again! What a contrast to what is there now!

If it takes 10 years for someone to write a melody for a text, then I seriously doubt their musical ability as a composer.

Also, as BG said, where is GIA’s quality control dept. in all of this???

 

[DeaconsSon87]

Rejoice…Mass of Creation II contains none of the ad-libs of the original:

giamusic.com/searchPDFS/G7694CD.pdf

(“Jesus, Lamb of God” is now just “Lamb of God”, and he didn’t bother to repeat any words in the revised “Holy, Holy”)

 

[baltobetsy]

Just an aside - you know you don’t have to use those tropes in the Agnus Dei. Just leave 'em out. It’s a little harder to get rid of the “Jesus” in there, but it seems it will be gone soon enough.

I’m happy to report that I as cantor sang the Mass of Creation for the very last time a couple of weeks ago. It is not scheduled again before Advent, and we are not getting the revised version! Yay!

 

[Justin1224]

For us in our parish, the Mass of Creation is probably the most solemn Mass setting we sing. We sing it during the Christmas season and then during the Easter Triduum. What bothers me is that this past year we did not use it through out the Easter season. Besides the Gloria of the Mass of Creation, the only other one we sing is the Judy Hylton Gloria, and for us, we only sing it during Christmas and Easter, during ordinary time we only recite it.

 

[Asperges_Me]

Rejoice…Mass of Creation II contains none of the ad-libs of the original:

giamusic.com/searchPDFS/G7694CD.pdf

(“Jesus, Lamb of God” is now just “Lamb of God”, and he didn’t bother to repeat any words in the revised “Holy, Holy”)

Thank you for the link. I feel much better now knowing that the Romal Missal text is followed correctly in the new Mass of Creation. If sung properly, I will try to be more charitable in my heart to the new version. The old version just kind of grates on me due to the ad libs.

I just hope the music directors don’t pick and choose from the old and the new though. Like Gloria from the new version and Lamb of God from the old version. Copies of the old version will still be around, so there may be a temptation there.

 

[TheMc]

Thank you for the link. I feel much better now knowing that the Romal Missal text is followed correctly in the new Mass of Creation. If sung properly, I will try to be more charitable in my heart to the new version. The old version just kind of grates on me due to the ad libs.

I just hope the music directors don’t pick and choose from the old and the new though. Like Gloria from the new version and Lamb of God from the old version. Copies of the old version will still be around, so there may be a temptation there.

I’m so glad the ad-libs are gone!!!

Similarly, I think we should start using the “new” MoC Agnus Dei now! If I recall, the agnus dei text does not change in the new translation, so we should use the corrected MoC agnus dei now (that is, if you must use the MoC at all ).

One thing I don’t understand about the MoC is it’s preface dialog. Isn’t the chanted one much nicer? The one included is overly simple.

Chanted Version:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[benedictgal]

What I do not like about the Mass of Creation is the fact that Haugen retains the “responsorial” Gloria. There is no need for that. Instead of music at the service of liturgy, we have liturgy at the service of the music. This is a bad trend that I hoped would have stopped with the revised translation.

I have recommended to my parish that we stick to the ICEL settings, as they do not have elaborate musical introductions and the texts are sung-through. You can’t go wrong with a setting that comes straight from the Roman Missal.

 

[Asperges_Me]

I’m so glad the ad-libs are gone!!!

Similarly, I think we should start using the “new” MoC Agnus Dei now! If I recall, the agnus dei text does not change in the new translation, so we should use the corrected MoC agnus dei now (that is, if you must use the MoC at all ).

One thing I don’t understand about the MoC is it’s preface dialog. Isn’t the chanted one much nicer? The one included is overly simple.

Chanted Version:
http://www.icelweb.org/musicimages/music1.gif

This is the best idea I’ve heard in a long time

And while we’re at it, why not start phasing out the “Christ Has Died…” after the Mystery of Faith now? Could still sing the remaining “old” translation verses that use the “second person” without causing any scandal. Would be good teaching moment.

 

[The_Rock]

What I do not like about the Mass of Creation is the fact that Haugen retains the “responsorial” Gloria. There is no need for that. Instead of music at the service of liturgy, we have liturgy at the service of the music. This is a bad trend that I hoped would have stopped with the revised translation.

I have recommended to my parish that we stick to the ICEL settings, as they do not have elaborate musical introductions and the texts are sung-through. You can’t go wrong with a setting that comes straight from the Roman Missal.

Does this “responsorial” Gloria violate any norms/rules for the new translation, or is this your personal preference? I ask because we will be using this setting and the liturgists at our parish are not known for their orthodoxy.

 

[TheMc]

Does this “responsorial” Gloria violate any norms/rules for the new translation, or is this your personal preference? I ask because we will be using this setting and the liturgists at our parish are not known for their orthodoxy.

No, the responsorial gloria is not allowed. Of course, many disagree with me on this, but none of them seem to be able to find church documents supporting their opinion… I can…

 

[YoungTradCath]

Unfortunately, it is allowed:

“149. The priest, or the cantor or choir, intones the Gloria. It is sung by all, by the people
alternately with the choir or cantor, or by the choir alone. If not sung, it is recited either by all
together or by two parts of the congregation in alternation. 'The addition of refrains to the Glory
to God is permitted, provided the refrains encourage congregational participation.'116 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.”

As per the USCCB, nccbuscc.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

 

[TheMc]

Unfortunately, it is allowed:

“149. The priest, or the cantor or choir, intones the Gloria. It is sung by all, by the people
alternately with the choir or cantor, or by the choir alone. If not sung, it is recited either by all
together or by two parts of the congregation in alternation. 'The addition of refrains to the Glory to God is permitted, provided the refrains encourage congregational participation.'116 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.”

As per the USCCB, nccbuscc.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

I’m aware of this, but Sing to the Lord has no authority on it’s own. Only when it is quoting other authoritative documents. No other church document in history has ever allowed the “responsorial gloria.” If you think I’m wrong, I would kindly ask that you show church documents backing yourself up.

 

[MarkThompson]

I’m aware of this, but Sing to the Lord has no authority on it’s own. Only when it is quoting other authoritative documents. No other church document in history has ever allowed the “responsorial gloria.” If you think I’m wrong, I would kindly ask that you show church documents backing yourself up.

The problem with your theory is one I have recently detailed here:
The Roman documents often aren’t as cut-and-dried as some people would like to think. “You must sing the text as it is given, without adding anything,” the documents say. But 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.

[Indeed,] Sing to the Lord was never submitted to the Holy See for recognitio, and thus it cannot trump documents like Sacrosanctum Concilium or even Liturgiam Authenticam, with their cautions about not changing the Mass texts. That’s the point, though: what’s called for is an interpretation of those documents, and in the absence of Roman authority to the contrary, the American bishops, through the NCCB/USCCB, are best qualified to carry it out.

 

[TheMc]

A side comment:

In his article linked to above, Haugen explains why he did not set the Our Fathefr.

I believe that the chant version of the Lord’s Prayer adapted by Robert Snow is so widely known that there may not be a need for another setting.

Yet he takes it upon himself to make up his own melody for the preface dialog, another widely known “piece” of music! How ironic and inconsistent.

 

[TheMc]

The problem with your theory is one I have recently detailed here:
The Roman documents often aren’t as cut-and-dried as some people would like to think. “You must sing the text as it is given, without adding anything,” the documents say. But 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.

[Indeed,] Sing to the Lord was never submitted to the Holy See for recognitio, and thus it cannot trump documents like Sacrosanctum Concilium or even Liturgiam Authenticam, with their cautions about not changing the Mass texts. That’s the point, though: what’s called for is an interpretation of those documents, and in the absence of Roman authority to the contrary, the American bishops, through the NCCB/USCCB, are best qualified to carry it out.

So you are saying you wouldn’t mind if we made other parts of the Mass responsorial too?

Cantor: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Heaven and earth are full of your glory!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Hosanna in the highest!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Hosanna in the highest!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!

 

[MarkThompson]

So you are saying you wouldn’t mind if we made other parts of the Mass responsorial too?

Cantor: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Heaven and earth are full of your glory!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Hosanna in the highest!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!
Cantor: Hosanna in the highest!
All: Holy, holy holy, Lord God of hosts!

First, I didn’t say I liked responsorial parts, I said that under our bishops’ interpretation of the rules a responsorial Gloria is permitted. It is invariably a mistake to conflate the question of whether something is a good idea (or to our taste) with the question of whether it is allowed, which is what you are trying to do here. Second, the remark in Sing to the Lord concerns the Gloria specifically, so whether the same applies to the Sanctus is an open question. Third, your version of the Sanctus is obviously ridiculous, since such a short song does not require five refrains; so, straw man and all that.

 

[Asperges_Me]

You can hear the new Mass of Creation here.

vidmotion.net/videos/dZmzLbmMfoU/mass-of-creation-revised-2010-by-marty-hagen.html

The redo is much better in my opinion, and faithful to the new text.

Every time the old one deviated from the approved text it struck a nerve with me like the “God of Power, *God Of *Might” or the “Jesus, Lamb of God”, and “Grant Us Your Peace”.

I wonder how many parishes will actually stop using the old Mass of Creation “Lamb of God” and replace it with the correct 2010 version, since the Lamb of God is the one thing that is not changing in the new translations.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Gosh, people would always post about this setting like it was the greatest thing. I finally heard it, and I think it’s an awful piece of music, liturgically-speaking. I think it insults the dignity of the new translation. Sure, it’s catchy, but I detest the thought of it being played in a parish.