Words have changed for Gloria, Lamb of God etc

  • Thread starter Thread starter perfectpeach
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

perfectpeach

Guest
I am concerned because recently in our Parish the words to the Gloria, Alleluia, Lamb of God and Holy have been change. I am NOT talking about the new translation… some of the words have been altered.

For instance, the New Lamb of God is

Lamb of God, you take a way this sins of the world. Have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us!

Gloria is now

Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the Highest and Peace to his people on Earth.

They are not MAJOR changes, but I was wondering if this is licit.
 
Well, it’s not so much a change as a repetition, which was probably done by the composer of the musical setting to make the words fit to the melody.

While a strict interpretation of the liturgical rules might preclude such a modification, I’d say it’s hardly worth worrying about. No new words are introduced, no new meanings are implied - it’s just a musical device.

Betsy
 
You may want to read throught he USCCB’s document “SING TO THE LORD” issued by the USCCB in November 2007 and is found here:
usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

From the document here is what it states regarding the Gloria
*The
*Gloria
148. “The *Gloria *is a very ancient and venerable hymn in which the Church, gathered
together in the Holy Spirit, glorifies and entreats God the Father and the Lamb. The text of this hymn may not be replaced by any other text. . . . It is sung or said on Sundays outside the Seasons of Advent and Lent, on solemnities and feasts, and at special celebrations of a more solemn character.”115
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.
150. The *Gloria *may not be moved to a different part of the Mass than the one assigned by the Roman Missal. It may not, for example, be used in place of the Entrance chant or song, or during the sprinkling with blessed water.
114

GIRM, no. 51; see The Roman Missal, Appendix II.
115

GIRM, no. 53.
116 BCL, Policy for the Approval of Sung Settings of Liturgical Texts.
Click to expand...
The BOLDING is mine … the plural aspect of the ‘composed settings’ clearly indicates that the words of the “Gloria” are known and acceptable … probably the most common - either loved or hated - is the “Mass of Creation” by Huagen [sp?] but most misssals include several composed options for the Gloria … which of course can be recited rather then sung …

I hope this helps - our liturgy team has been studying this document for the past year plus
 
YADA said:
You may want to read throught he USCCB’s document “SING TO THE LORD” issued by the USCCB in November 2007 and is found here:
usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

From the document here is what it states regarding the Gloria

The BOLDING is mine … the plural aspect of the ‘composed settings’ clearly indicates that the words of the “Gloria” are known and acceptable … probably the most common - either loved or hated - is the “Mass of Creation” by Huagen [sp?] but most misssals include several composed options for the Gloria … which of course can be recited rather then sung …

I hope this helps - our liturgy team has been studying this document for the past year plus
Click to expand...
However, even the Mass of Creation has its problems, as Haugen takes liberties with the text. The composers are supposed to use the text “as is” and not take it upon themselves to change the wording around. The liturgy team really should not have anything to worry about, unless the texts of the Mass have been compromised, as in the case of Ferrel’s ghastly Mass of Hope composition.

Remember, too, that the composers are supposed to be faithful to the text of the parts of the Mass and cannot parpaphrase nor take liberties with the parts of the Mass. That was the stern warning that the CDWDS gave when it released the ordinary of the Mass.

Now, Sing to the Lord is merely for suggestions. It does not carry the necessary recognitio from Rome that would give it the force of law. In fact, there are some sections that run contrary to what the official liturgical documents require.
 
benedictgal said:
However, even the Mass of Creation has its problems, as Haugen takes liberties with the text. The composers are supposed to use the text “as is” and not take it upon themselves to change the wording around. The liturgy team really should not have anything to worry about, unless the texts of the Mass have been compromised, as in the case of Ferrel’s ghastly Mass of Hope composition.

Remember, too, that the composers are supposed to be faithful to the text of the parts of the Mass and cannot parpaphrase nor take liberties with the parts of the Mass. That was the stern warning that the CDWDS gave when it released the ordinary of the Mass.

Now, Sing to the Lord is merely for suggestions. It does not carry the necessary recognitio from Rome that would give it the force of law. In fact, there are some sections that run contrary to what the official liturgical documents require.
Click to expand...
Yes, I indicated that Haugen is both loved and hated … I won’t debate that issue. The GIRM is the official document of liturgy [we have also studied that along with the documents of Vatican II.]

I provideded a link to the USCCB’s newest document “Sing to the Lord”. This document puts forth the USCCB’s instructions for music used in liturgy and the theology behind that use. The document is worthy of study. The USCCB is the governing body for the the Church that resides in the US. I will leave discipline and correction of the USCCB to those so charged - little o me - I’ll follow my Bishop - unless he begins telling Jesus is not both Human & Divine or some other absolute heretical teaching.

Which brings us to the actual selection of music. Missals and music are approved by the Bishops for liturgical use in their respective diocese. No Bishop has every asked me what my preferences are, what should be included and what should not.

BTW, my parish priest is known to be very orthodox liturgically - I personally have no concerns. I do have my personal ‘opinions’ about things - but as I said, I humbly submit … and try to remain focused on the meaning an purpose of our worship 😉
 
perfectpeach said:
I am concerned because recently in our Parish the words to the Gloria, Alleluia, Lamb of God and Holy have been change. I am NOT talking about the new translation… some of the words have been altered.

For instance, the New Lamb of God is

Lamb of God, you take a way this sins of the world. Have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us!

Gloria is now

Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the Highest and Peace to his people on Earth.

They are not MAJOR changes, but I was wondering if this is licit.
Click to expand...
Plenty of settings of the mass by great composers would repeat words in the Latin text.

This is nothing new.
 
Thanks everyone.

I understand that the actual WORDS haven’t changed so it is nothing to worry about. It is ashame because I do not like the new melody.
 
YADA said:
Yes, I indicated that Haugen is both loved and hated … I won’t debate that issue. The GIRM is the official document of liturgy [we have also studied that along with the documents of Vatican II.]

I provideded a link to the USCCB’s newest document “Sing to the Lord”. This document puts forth the USCCB’s instructions for music used in liturgy and the theology behind that use. The document is worthy of study. The USCCB is the governing body for the the Church that resides in the US. I will leave discipline and correction of the USCCB to those so charged - little o me - I’ll follow my Bishop - unless he begins telling Jesus is not both Human & Divine or some other absolute heretical teaching.

Which brings us to the actual selection of music. Missals and music are approved by the Bishops for liturgical use in their respective diocese. No Bishop has every asked me what my preferences are, what should be included and what should not.

BTW, my parish priest is known to be very orthodox liturgically - I personally have no concerns. I do have my personal ‘opinions’ about things - but as I said, I humbly submit … and try to remain focused on the meaning an purpose of our worship 😉
Click to expand...
However, Sing to the Lord is not an official document in that it does not carry the recognitio from Rome. Because it does not, it is merely recommendations. Sing to the Lord’s original intent was to bring the United States into compliance with Lturgiam Authenticam, the authoritative document of the Holy See regarding translations of the liturgy. The document was supposed to have set forth a directory of songs used here in the United States; however, an intense lobbying effort by the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions and the National Pastoral Musicians Association managed to derail the original intent. What came out was a significantly watered down version that really has no authority since it does not carry the recognitio from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

While Sing to the Lord does repeat some of what is found in Musicam Sacram (the authoritative document of the Holy See on Music), it actually contradicts the norms by suggesting that additional trophes can be added to the Agnus Dei. This goes against even Liturgiam Authenticam because this document states that the parts of the Mass should not be paraphrased. While it is slightly better than Music in Catholic Worship, the document it replaces, Sing to the Lord does not carry the same weight as the GIRM, RS and the authoritative documents of the Holy See since it does not bear the necessary recognitio from Rome.

The USCCB is not necessarily a rule-making authority. If it does introduce adaptations to the GIRM and the other liturgical documents, this can only done if 2/3 of the Latin Rite bishops vote in the affirmative and if Rome, through the CDWDS, gives its recognitio.
 
benedictgal said:
The USCCB is not necessarily a rule-making authority.
Click to expand...
No, but they are bishops and as such have individual authority in their own diocese. While they can not rewrite the GIRM, they can interpret its application, like whether phrases can be repeated ore echoed in a Psalm or Gloria.

What still needs to be emphasized is the need to avoid parts with the wrong words, Like Haugen’s Mass of Creation, Lamb of God.
 
pnewton said:
No, but they are bishops and as such have individual authority in their own diocese. While they can not rewrite the GIRM, they can interpret its application, like whether phrases can be repeated ore echoed in a Psalm or Gloria.

What still needs to be emphasized is the need to avoid parts with the wrong words, Like Haugen’s Mass of Creation, Lamb of God.
Click to expand...
Granted, they have rule-making authority as individual bishops, it only goes so far in that they should not be approving stuff contrary to the norms.

That is so true about fooling with the text. Of course, Ferrel’s badly paraphrased Agnus Dei. I am still trying to convince our parish’s director of music to deep-six the setting. My parochial vicar so badly wants a Gloria that does not repeat. It would be great to return to A Community Mass, the Proulx setting that we used (and is still in use) at the Cathedral. One thing about Proulx: he does not fool with the text! 👍
 
Goolly Gee … I did not mean to start a discussion on Haugen’s Mass of Creation … it was just an example that had enough controversy [Like - Hate] attached to it that I thought the OP would recognize what was meant by “compsed setting” …

And “Sing to the Lord” is easily read [more so then many Church documents], includes theological back ground …

Argue all you want, I choose not to go there …especially when it comes to music … Perfectly phrased or not …

FYI- when it comes to matters liturgical - I will always try to follow my Bishop’s lead rather than an internet poster … and in the hierarchy of liturgical documents - “Sing to the Lord” is far better then many and more authoritative then some and probably better then a summary posted in an internet Forum …

Not everyone that comes to CAF has a Masters Degree in any Curricula - let alone Liturguical Studies, Pastoral Ministry or Theology …

🤷 Don’t like my offer of information - offer your own … PAX CHRISTE
 
YADA said:
Goolly Gee … I did not mean to start a discussion on Haugen’s Mass of Creation … it was just an example that had enough controversy [Like - Hate] attached to it that I thought the OP would recognize what was meant by “compsed setting” …

And “Sing to the Lord” is easily read [more so then many Church documents], includes theological back ground …

Argue all you want, I choose not to go there …especially when it comes to music … Perfectly phrased or not …

FYI- when it comes to matters liturgical - I will always try to follow my Bishop’s lead rather than an internet poster … and in the hierarchy of liturgical documents - “Sing to the Lord” is far better then many and more authoritative then some and probably better then a summary posted in an internet Forum …

Not everyone that comes to CAF has a Masters Degree in any Curricula - let alone Liturguical Studies, Pastoral Ministry or Theology …

🤷 Don’t like my offer of information - offer your own … PAX CHRISTE
Click to expand...
The problem is that Sing to the Lord does not carry the recogntio from Rome, and, that is mighty important. Thus, Sing to the Lord is not mandatory, but simply suggestive, like its predecessor, Music in Catholic Worship. Even Built on Living Stones is not a requirement. The document contains suggestions for parishes building new churches, but, it is not mandatory.

It is better to go witih Musicam Sacram, the authoritative document of the Holy See. It might do you some well to read Liturgiam Authenticam, the document which was the starting point for the original version of Sing to the Lord.

You might be interested in reading this power point presentation from the USCCB:

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

This is what Sing to the Lord was originally supposed to be. If you note, even this power point presentation, made by the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship, found some serious problems with a lot of the music. However, the USCCB took a serious detour from the original intent and the result was something that was heavily watered down and does not really say anything. The document, by the way, failed to get the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops in order for it to be sent to Rome for the required recognitio.

Nonetheless, in the hierarchy of documents, as you stated, Sing to the Lord does not even come close since, as I repeat, it does not carry the recognitio from Rome that would make it mandatory. As I see it, the USCCB let a wonderful opportunity to finally clean up the mess in music go by the wayside.

I was in St. Louis back in November for a work-related meeting, but I managed to get away to attend the Gateway Liturgical Conference. Archbishop Malcolm Ranjinth, who, at the time, was the Secretary to the CDWDS, told me that the Holy See was working on its own document regarding Sacred Music and it should be released some time in 2009. Gven the changes in leadership, it may come sooner, it may come at the tail end of the year. Nonetheless, the Archbishop told me that he knew and fully understood my concerns about the downhill turn that the quality of music here in the States has taken. He was also adamant that paraphrases to the official texts of the Ordinary of the Mass should not be happening. In fact, the CDWDS made that issue perfectly clear when it released the Ordinary so that composers can start working on the settings.
 
perfectpeach said:
I am concerned because recently in our Parish the words to the Gloria, Alleluia, Lamb of God and Holy have been change. I am NOT talking about the new translation… some of the words have been altered.

For instance, the New Lamb of God is

Lamb of God, you take a way this sins of the world. Have mercy, have mercy, have mercy on us!

Gloria is now

Glory to God, Glory to God, Glory to God in the Highest and Peace to his people on Earth.

They are not MAJOR changes, but I was wondering if this is licit.
Click to expand...
those don’t some like they are of much concerned. Recently my parish has been saying for the Agnus Dei. Jesus, Lamb of God who take away the sins of the world have mercy on us, Jesus, bread of life who takes away the sins of the world have mercy on us, Jesus, lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world grant us piece. I have a little concern about that. Yes, Jesus is the bread of life, but I don’t think it is licit for the Agnus Dei. We do occasionally sing the Agnus Dei in Latin and really love that
 
tobinatorstark said:
those don’t some like they are of much concerned. Recently my parish has been saying for the Agnus Dei. Jesus, Lamb of God who take away the sins of the world have mercy on us, Jesus, bread of life who takes away the sins of the world have mercy on us, Jesus, lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world grant us piece. I have a little concern about that. Yes, Jesus is the bread of life, but I don’t think it is licit for the Agnus Dei. We do occasionally sing the Agnus Dei in Latin and really love that
Click to expand...
You do have a right to be concerned, as these trophes are ilicit. We do not have the freedom (articistic license) to change any wording of the official texts of the Mass.
 
This sounds like a special **ARRANGEMENT **of the GLoria and agnus dei that we sang at our easter mass. I agree, its more repetition than altering. If you look at it, all the words are still there
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top