Lamb of God/Jesus Lamb of God

[Southern Comfort]

Yes, already considered.

I suspect that a lot of music is going to end up in sections other than 'service music', which does seem a somewhat pathetic state of affairs. The Berthier Gloria, to give just one example that is used in a lot of parishes, will not be allowed in the 'service music' section of a hymnbook but can be printed in the 'praise' section and so still used by those who wish to do so. One wonders, therefore, what is the purpose of policing the texts in this way. It does not appear to have been thought through in any coherent fashion.

I also suspect that the powers-that-be are going to run into the problem of cross-national publishing. Most products are sold in many countries, not just the country of origin. What happens when a publisher submits a piece, one country's approval process rejects it, but the approval process of another country in which the product is sold has no problem with it. This problem has already been in existence for a number of years, ever since the Americans started to police liturgical music settings and in effect told other Conferences of Bishops, such as the Canadians and ourselves, what they could and could not use.

[Nick Baty]

I'm wondering what the scope is for Fraction Songs? I'm thinking specifically of those that include the full text of the Lamb of God, but with extra repetitions using other invocations such as Bread of Life, Light of the World etc.

The Guidelines seem to be strangely silent on this point - i.e. they do not say - 'this is not permitted'. I presume this is the type of thing where what the panel accepts will give a better idea of what is possible.

It looks as though we now have a precedent in Philip Jakob’s New Wine Mass. The Lamb of God sets the text exactly as laid out in the Missal. Beneath is an instruction which reads:

“The first and last verses must use the text as above. It may be that additional verses may be required when the fraction rite is prolonged.”

There then follows a list of suggestions: Bread of Life, Prince of Peace etc.

Not quite as liberal as decisions make by the US bishops (eg Dan Schutte’s Mass of Christ the Saviour) but perhaps not quite as restrictive as we’d previously thought.

[mcb]

The Guidelines seem to be strangely silent on this point - i.e. they do not say - 'this is not permitted'. I presume this is the type of thing where what the panel accepts will give a better idea of what is possible.

Roma locuta.

[musicus]

Thanks for that, Martin. I wonder when (or if) everyone else is going to hear about that. And I also wonder what Jerry Galipeau means by "Note the words 'further permission.'" Perhaps he hopes it means that existing (and published) tropes are OK, but don't ask for any new ones.

Where does this leave composers who have already published examples of this, or, for that matter, Permission to Publish Panels that have approved them?

[Southern Comfort]

Thanks for that, Martin. I wonder when (or if) everyone else is going to hear about that. And I also wonder what Jerry Galipeau means by "Note the words 'further permission.'" Perhaps he hopes it means that existing (and published) tropes are OK, but don't ask for any new ones.

Where does this leave composers who have already published examples of this, or, for that matter, Permission to Publish Panels that have approved them?

Yes, Jerry Galipeau does mean that existing settings may continue, but that new ones will not be approved. A classic "grandfathering" clause.

No one has yet raised the question as to whether the Congregation has any right in law to tell a Bishops' Conference how to amend what is an internal document to that territory, particularly when the document in question was not submitted to Rome for approval precisely because they feared that Rome would try to change it. Nor the question as to whether the Congregation has any kind of historical perspective on the question — i.e. that this practice was reintroduced following the earlier practice of the Church in the Middle Ages.

As far as England and Wales are concerned, the 1971 tacit approval of the Conference to permit troped settings of the Lamb of God, and the explicit approval of the use of the ICET text of the Lamb of God* as long as it was sung, continue in effect until such time as the Conference issues an edict to the contrary, whether prompted by pressure from the Congregation or not.

*Jesus, Lamb of God:
have mercy on us.
Jesus, bearer of our sin:
have mercy on us.
Jesus, redeemer of the world:
give us your peace.

[Nick Baty]

As far as England and Wales are concerned, the 1971 tacit approval of the Conference to permit troped settings of the Lamb of God, and the explicit approval of the use of the ICET text of the Lamb of God* as long as it was sung, continue in effect until such time as the Conference issues an edict to the contrary, whether prompted by pressure from the Congregation or not.

But what will happen when publishers submit complete Masses (hate that term but hope you know what I mean) which include the ICET text to The Panel?

Of course, publishers may continue to publish this text for use in the Anglican market. Oops! Danger there is that Romans will continue to use it. Then, unless Rome plans to spend spies to every parish in Christendom, it will continue to be sung. Of course, the same could be said of Israeli Mass of which I disapprove almost as much as I disapprove of The Daily M**l.

[Southern Comfort]

But what will happen when publishers submit complete Masses (hate that term but hope you know what I mean) which include the ICET text to The Panel?

It happened very early on — see further up this thread. Unchanged settings of the ICET text of the Agnus Dei were submitted within revised Mass settings, and were rejected. Appeals were launched on the grounds that the ICET text was still an approved text, but to no avail. The Panel is accountable to no one, least of all the Bishops, it seems.

It appears, from an authoritative post further up this thread, that the answer now is just to go ahead and publish, since apparently (and see also further up this thread) settings of these texts do not need to be submitted for approval as they are not the liturgical texts in the Missal (but see also further up this thread — the ICET Agnus Dei has never been printed in any published Missal and yet has remained approved for use for 41 years now). That, as you imply, Nick, is good news for the publishers of Israeli paraphrases, but not for anyone else, alas.

The whole situation is bizarre and unsatisfying, like so much else connected with the 3rd Edition of the RM.

If only consultation had taken place at an early stage, some of these scenarios could have been anticipated and proper policies prepared. As it is, policies are being made up on the run, and changed when new realisations come to light.

[Nick Baty]

It appears, from an authoritative post further up this thread, that the answer now is just to go ahead and publish, since apparently (and see also further up this thread) settings of these texts do not need to be submitted for approval as they are not the liturgical texts in the Missal...

But not if you want to include it in a collection with approved ICEL texts – The Panel can then turn down the whole lot!

[Southern Comfort]

It appears, from an authoritative post further up this thread, that the answer now is just to go ahead and publish, since apparently (and see also further up this thread) settings of these texts do not need to be submitted for approval as they are not the liturgical texts in the Missal...

But not if you want to include it in a collection with approved ICEL texts – The Panel can then turn down the whole lot!

Nick, I don't think this is quite right. And the problem, of course, is that the situation is so vague that no one really knows.

Certainly sheets of paper have come back from the Panel with some items approved and others with approval withheld. I personally have not seen any sheets that have had everything damned on the basis of just one item not being approved. And I have not heard that the Panel thinks it is exercising any kind of jurisdiction over collections of material, some of which may pertain to it and other material (such as we have been discussing) that does not come within its purview.

[Nick Baty]

So why did the whole of Laudate have to be submitted?
Or am I wrong there?
Was it just the service music pages which were submitted while the whole went to some sort of imprimatur?

[mcb]

Nihil obstat, wasn't it?

[Nick Baty]

Yes, something along the lines of an ecclesiastical Ofsted.

[alan29]

Re - troping the Agnus.
Could we not borrow from the EF and have the celebrant silently recite the approved words while a troped version is sung?

[Nick Baty]

Or sing it in Latin so noone knows what we're singing anyway?

[Peter Jones]

Why might anyone want to add tropes in the first place?

(I'm not accepting answers such as 'It's for those occasions when the litany needs to be extended". I have such an occasion on the horizon and I'm not using tropes.)

(Note to self - revisit my article in a recent M & L concerning setting this text and the significance of the title Lamb of God, followed by Behold the Lamb of God… )