I will miss the hootnanny, hand clapping Glorias that I have been subjected to even less than I would miss a very bad cold.
And I have to confess I will miss the various versions of the “Gloria” music..
And together with that the union with the Anglicans started. May be the mistranslation kept them back, until those faithful to the tradition started to form groups, which are uniting.
It overall does look like the changes are closer to the translation of the Latin Mass.
In my Home parish, the music director told my mother-in-law, who directs choir for the tridentine mass, that they were going to be limited to a list that has very specific songs on it. She was shown the list, and it mostly consists of hymns she recognized as traditional, and maybe a few of the new ones. Thank the Lord! No more “gather us in…”
HAHAHAHA!!!
Kidding. No, it is just a translation update, and there is no new guidance or requirements on music. Anything else is an independent reform coming from your bishop or pastor.What I love is that it’s not just a translation update! We are finally having the abominable music and hymns addressed as well!
It provides an oppostunity, and, hopefully, impetus for other changes. But if a parish wants to keep on using (the revised) Mass of Creation, along with Gather Us In, Women of the Church, and everything else that gets people all jittery to log on to teh internets to complain about, there is nothing in the “new translation” to affect that at all. The revised Roman Missal will come with inset plainchants – hopefully their mere presence will help foster the idea that more of the Mass ought to be chanted – but their use is not required.
Oh yeah? Come November 28, I fully expect to read the wailing laments of people for whom, other than the words themselves, it was exactly the same – where were all the traditional hymns, the new reverence, incense, and ad orientem that they were promised were surely coming? Ah, right – it was largely based on wishful thinking extrapolated from reform efforts going on in some places concurrently with the new translation.
I hope so! There is every reason to use this reform of the translation to help promote other reforms we favor. But that will not happen if people just grin, slap each other on the back, and say “Reverence is right around the corner! Even as we speak, someone must be hard at work behind the scenes fixing the music and everything else you don’t like, no worries!” This is why one cannot just say “it’s not just a translation update! We are finally having the abominable music and hymns addressed as well!” I guess it depends on what the meaning of the word it is, but “it” really is just a translation update. Or else “we” means one particular parish with a go-getter of a priest, and hence the sentence, and the sentiment, is not really applicable to anyone else.It’ll be more reverent it sounds like.
Maybe subjectively, but there is nothing that says anything about guarantees that they bring us any closer to Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium than before. In fact, they just reinforce the all-vernacular-all-the-time, albeit suggesting that they bring us “closer to the Latin.” Having a few cognates in English (“transubstantial,” “spirit,” “visible”) is a strange way of preserving Latin in the liturgy per SC intent. Requiring the use of some section of Latin (Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, Pater Noster, or Agnus Dei, parishioners’ choice) would have been an improvement, IMO.
” smiley is just being pompous. You all know perfectly well what marks a conservative traditional Catholic.). Anyone who claims to be ignorant of this difference is either a celibate monk who entered cloister at age 12, or is being abstruse.It’s certainly good that they finally got the words of consecration right (“for many” as opposed to “for all”). This mistranlsation from the Latin into the vernacular is something Traditional Catholics fought to have corrected for years. It’s great to see that the Church has finally corrected this error. So, for that I know all Traditional Catholics are very thankful.
The worst abuse what I seen in the good old time was a priest who was drunk, to the level that he had trouble to walk.
And chances are these same people will protest if Palestrina’s Kyrie Eleison is sung at their Mass because that would be too long and could lead to possible disruption of the flow of traffic after Mass.
In fact, the time frame of those abuses is a bit different. They got into swing with the release of the second incarnation of the “interim Missal” in 1967 (the all-vernacular-all-the-time one, which was, in fact, nothing more than a prelude to the Novus Ordo in the first place. The first edition (1965) wasn’t too bad.). That’s when the guitars and the Kumbaya etc, became overwhelming and it’s when I first heard of “chips & coke” and clowns and such things.You are correct, Laszlo; however, I can’t help but wonder at a few things. If the Rite itself contributes or detracts nothing from solemnity, why did the infamous clown-Mass and other insane abuses only come up after 1968? Where did acoustic-guitar and electric-guitar services pop out but from the new Rite? Certainly, we never had any synth-Masses before 1965 (and the Moog existed beforehand!)… it’s just a frustration.
For a step back in time, here’s a VERY interesting letter to Pope Paul VI by Fr. Gomma Depaus in 1967. This gives us a glimpse into the state of the Church at the time.
I agree that the more correct language is a step in the right direction. However as much as I would like a return to the EF as the standard, I don’t expect that to happen anytime soon. I feel that the next step should be to encourage a return to the celebrant being Ad Orientam i.e. facing in the same direction as the people, and returning the tabernacle to the center of the altar, so that we are focusing on Jesus instead of each other. Also a return to the traditional Canon (Eucharistic prayer I) with its greater emphasis on the Holy Sacrifice.