"You Are Near" song

[benedictgal]

As we’ve discussed before, paragraph 41 of Liturgiam Authenticam quoted by Phemie in post #6, seems to address translation of the propers. It did not specifically address liturgical hymns. It was not until last year that the CDW came out with its letter essentially saying, “What we really meant was…”

If you could provide evidence that paragraph 41 was widely understood to include liturgical hymns before the clarification in 2008, I think your claim would be more reasonable.

Actually, Liturgiam Authenticam covers everything that is used in the liturgy, including song. If that were not the case, the CDWDS would not have had to send reminders to the publishing houses regarding the matter. Furthermore, LA also called for national episcopal conferences to revise their music and have a directory of songs. That is what Sing to the Lord was supposed to have been.

It’s not that the CDWDS said “what we really meant was”; rather, they clearly stated what it meant, the publshing houses, as I see it, simply ignored it. Furthemore, had they read the document, they would not have continued to include service music that is not faithful to the official texts of the Church.

I stand by the statements that I have made.

 

[JaMc]

This thread is interesting. Just before my wedding, in the booklet our Priest gave us with the choices of readings, prayers, etc., pretty much every single Responsorial Psalm in there used “Yahweh.” I asked the Priest if we could use a different translation, and he said we could, so I used the Douay-Rheims translation, but I was still surprised to see “Yahweh” for use in the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

This thread is interesting. Just before my wedding, in the booklet our Priest gave us with the choices of readings, prayers, etc., pretty much every single Responsorial Psalm in there used “Yahweh.” I asked the Priest if we could use a different translation, and he said we could, so I used the Douay-Rheims translation, but I was still surprised to see “Yahweh” for use in the liturgy.

The book wasn’t by any chance by Champlagne (spelling)? We used to use his book “together for life”. It was not the most impressive book, in my opinion. Liturgiam Authenticam came out in 2001 in response to some faulty translations that the CDWDS found in quite a bit of the work of ICEL. When ICEL presented a new translation for the Rite of Ordination, Jorge Cardinal Medina, then-prefect of the CDWDS, put the kibosh on it because he found some serious flaws with the document. This led to the CDWDS running the white glove on all of the other ICEL documents, leading to the promulgation of Liturgiam Authenticam and to the creation of the Vox Clara committee. All of this eventually led to a re-translation of the Roman Missal for use in English-speaking countries.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

However, Dan Schutte is not necessarily known for using the word “Father” in his songs. Just because he’s suggesting it (inasmuch as it is an SLJ song) that does not necessarily make it better.

It’s not just a St. Louis Jesuits song, it’s a song written by Dan Schutte. Thus his preference matters. I’m guessing that when OCP publishes their next hymnal, they will change the words as he wishes.

 

[JaMc]

The book wasn’t by any chance by Champlagne (spelling)? We used to use his book “together for life”.

That was the one. I also thought some of the commentary in there was a little questionable as well, but the translations of the Psalms were the worst.

 

[benedictgal]

It’s not just a St. Louis Jesuits song, it’s a song written by Dan Schutte. Thus his preference matters. I’m guessing that when OCP publishes their next hymnal, they will change the words as he wishes.

But, his preference may not necessarily be in line with the preference of the Church. That is par for a lot of the songs in OCP’s arsenal. What is more important, to use a song as the composer intends or as the Church intends? Our parish’s music director made that comment when I told her that Ferrel’s Mass of Hope is not suitable for the Mass becasue she takes excessive liberties. She said that they needed to sing the songs as they were written. I told her that Ferrel needs to write her stuff as the Church requests it.

Maybe Schutte should read the powerpoint presentation that the USCCB made regarding Sacred Music. Here is one of the findings of the USCCB in a sampling that it took of the songs out there:

Names for God: The first question asked in examining the songs was what names they used to refer to God. Here a full range of biblical titles were used, though “Father” was used only 10% of the time.

You can read the entire powerpoint for yourself:

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

You might find it rather eye-opening.

 

[Digitonomy]

Actually, Liturgiam Authenticam covers everything that is used in the liturgy, including song. If that were not the case, the CDWDS would not have had to send reminders to the publishing houses regarding the matter.

I’ll take that to mean no, you don’t have any evidence from prior to 2008 that paragraph 41 was widely understood to include hymns.

benedictgal:

Furthermore, LA also called for national episcopal conferences to revise their music and have a directory of songs.

Yes, in paragraph 108, when it finally addressed itself specifically to liturgical hymns.

benedictgal:

I stand by the statements that I have made.

Stand all you want, but it’s a fallacious argument to say that because the CDW issued instructions on LA in 2008, everyone in 2001 should have known to read LA in this way.

 

[pnewton]

It’s not just a St. Louis Jesuits song, it’s a song written by Dan Schutte. Thus his preference matters. I’m guessing that when OCP publishes their next hymnal, they will change the words as he wishes.

But if he makes it sound stupid and awkward, I am done with it. I doubt I will be alone. “O God” and “O Lord” is stilted and mis-accented.

What I don’t understand is why a simple single syllable can’t be substitued and why everyone is son tied to the “O” that doesn’t fit.

 

[Phemie]

But if he makes it sound stupid and awkward, I am done with it. I doubt I will be alone. “O God” and “O Lord” is stilted and mis-accented.

What I don’t understand is why a simple single syllable can’t be substitued and why everyone is son tied to the “O” that doesn’t fit.

I’m the first to admit I know nothing about music. but we’ve been singing it that way for 15 years and I don’t understand your beef. I sing “O Lord” then I sing “Yahweh” and I can’t hear/understand the difference.

 

[benedictgal]

I’ll take that to mean no, you don’t have any evidence from prior to 2008 that paragraph 41 was widely understood to include hymns.Yes, in paragraph 108, when it finally addressed itself specifically to liturgical hymns.Stand all you want, but it’s a fallacious argument to say that because the CDW issued instructions on LA in 2008, everyone in 2001 should have known to read LA in this way.

It’s not a fallacious argument, diggerdomer. What the CDWDS issued was a reminder to the publishing houses that LA did not allow for the use of the Holy Name of God in the liturgy. That includes music.

Furthermore, the fact that OCP still allows the offiical texts of the prayers of the Mass to be paraphrased is, as far as I can tell, further indication that they don’t exactly read the documents.

 

[Digitonomy]

It’s not a fallacious argument, diggerdomer. What the CDWDS issued was a reminder to the publishing houses that LA did not allow for the use of the Holy Name of God in the liturgy. That includes music.

I would agree with that for the most part - although the letter was actually to the bishops’ conferences. The main disagreement I have is not what the CDW wrote last year. It is whether in 2001 paragraph 41 was widely understood in the way the CDW instructed the bishops to interpret it last year.

If it had been widely understood in that way in 2001, it would make perfect sense for you to blast OCP for not complying on that point. But the single piece of evidence you’ve been able to provide is from seven years later.

 

[benedictgal]

I would agree with that for the most part - although the letter was actually to the bishops’ conferences. The main disagreement I have is not what the CDW wrote last year. It is whether in 2001 paragraph 41 was widely understood in the way the CDW instructed the bishops to interpret it last year.

If it had been widely understood in that way in 2001, it would make perfect sense for you to blast OCP for not complying on that point. But the single piece of evidence you’ve been able to provide is from seven years later.

Actually, the document is pretty self-explanatory. What you seem to not want to take into account is the fact that it was ignored by the publishing houses, causing the CDWDS to reaffirm and restate the provisions of LA, and to remind the bishops that they needed to have better quality control of what is used in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

Furthermore, it’s been online for about eight years now. That OCP chose to ignore it is their fault. Rather than trying to focus on being on the cutting edge, OCP should best direct its efforts at being faithful to the liturgical directives of the Church.