No more "Yaweh"

[pnewton]

“Being touched,” of course, is not why the Church asks that chant be given pride of place in the liturgy.

Of course not. Poke fun at the phrase if you want. It is a weird phrase. Part of us being called together as a Church is to minsister to each others needs. The Eucharist is not just for adoration, but also for strength that we need on our journey. I guess we can forever debate the amount of balance and bring in Vatican II as some as done. We must acknowledge worship is both about granting God his due, God granting us his grace and serving our neighbor.

 

[Brendan]

This letter only applies to liturgical translation. I quoted earlier the CCC and when it is approproate.

No, Liturgicam Authenticam applies to the whole liturgy (hence the name). Faithfulness to translation is only one part of the letter. In fact, it has an entire section on conforming Liturgical Music within a bishops conference.

And the letter we are discussing certainly DOES pertain to music, it says so specifically.

Yes, some people like the song. They can sing it again after the composers produce new lyrics, the publishers publish an edition with the revised lyrics, and their parishes buy copies.

The USCCB Commitee on the Liturgy presented a session on the changes for music required by Lit. Auth.

www.usccb.org/liturgy/MUSIC%20FDLCnew.ppt

It’s slower than molassas in Feb coming from the USCCB site, here is another location with the slides in HTML format.

praytwice.com/usccb/MUSIC%20FDLCnew_files/frame.htm

Lit Auth. requires that a bishop conference develop and approval a common hymnal which will be then submitted to Rome for a recognito. It was supposed to be done two years ago, but Rome gave an extention until after the Missal was translated.

Slide 16 is interesting, it shows the theological precision in music that the bishops will be looking for.

 

[pnewton]

No, Liturgicam Authenticam applies to the whole liturgy (hence the name). Faithfulness to translation is only one part of the letter. In fact, it has an entire section on conforming Liturgical Music within a bishops conference.

I understand that. If you check what I was responding to, you will see it was use of the name of God outside of liturgy, as in, at home or in the car. The links you gave do not address this paricular issue, BTW.

 

[jmcrae]

The fact remains that this is many people’s favorite song. In fact, I mentioned that crazy substitution partly to test how much of the opnions here are theological and how much musical opinion is being stated. I do have a real solution. “Father, I know you are near”, would still allow for a sense of intimacy and has the same number of syllables.

YHWH is the Trinity; not the Father.

 

[GodsGadfly]

“The fact remains that this is many people’s favorite song”
One of my favorite songs is “The Phantom of the Opera”; does that mean I can demand it be sung at Mass?

 

[pnewton]

YHWH is the Trinity; not the Father.

I know. It is an adaptation, not a translation. But since it is just a song, it does not have to be translated.

Likewise, “Sing a new Song” could be change to “Let the people dance for joy” which is not the same thing, but works. We will see how these things go.

 

[pnewton]

“The fact remains that this is many people’s favorite song”
One of my favorite songs is “The Phantom of the Opera”; does that mean I can demand it be sung at Mass?

I can’t when for losing. People here have often complained about the choices their musicians make for Mass. Yet when someone tries and factor in the people’s desire, he is criticized for making that effort. “The Phantom of the Opera” is a silly comparison as it is not a Mass song by anybody’s definition. In another thread on Protestant hymns I actually posted the way I do make decisions. Obviously when this letter is official, or even substantiated, I will not use “You Are Near” until it is corrected by the publisher, as it will no longer meet the criteria for use.

 

[Jean_Anthony]

This thread is closed.