Southern Comfort wrote:There seems no rhyme or reason to this.
I am in process of editing someone else's Mass setting, in the hope that it will pass the panel at first attempt.
The composer has set the Doxology with capital "H" - "Through Him, and with Him etc........." - which seems sensible to me at this point in the Mass. However, the Guide for Composers/Missal gives us no capitalisation whatsoever at this point: "Through him, and with him etc........."
There must be an ICEL explanation for this somewhere, I suppose.
Gwyn wrote:A bit off topic, no need to comment, but in Pythonesque mode, we're sadly having two Christs to venerate at our forthcoming Good Friday afternoon service. It's just wrong on so many levels.
Off topic but interesting as most of us won't be having even one!
presbyter wrote:However, the Guide for Composers/Missal gives us no capitalisation whatsoever at this point: "Through him, and with him etc........."There must be an ICEL explanation for this somewhere, I suppose.
Same reason the Death, Resurrection, Bread and Cup have been given caps?
presbyter wrote:However, the Guide for Composers/Missal gives us no capitalisation whatsoever at this point: "Through him, and with him etc........."There must be an ICEL explanation for this somewhere, I suppose.
Same reason the Death, Resurrection, Bread and Cup have been given caps?
HallamPhil wrote:Presbyter I am presuming that there is no capitalisation for 'him' in the doxology because there is no capitalisation of 'ipsum' etc in the latin.
Maybe but if that were the case, why this? No capitals in the Latin for Death and Resurrection; only for Domine.
We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine, et tuam resurrectionem confitemur, donec venias.
Could be simply because those words look OK capped up in an altar missal – remnants of illuminated manuscripts? But they look pretty crummy under a line of music.
Nick Baty wrote:Could be simply because those words look OK capped up in an altar missal – remnants of illuminated manuscripts? But they look pretty crummy under a line of music.
If they were to pay more attention to textual matters ...
Better still, don't employ composers as such to do a job that isn't necessarily where their skills lie (tho' if my suspicions as to the identity of one or two of them are correct, I wouldn't necessarily say ...).
Quite so, Presbyter, I can't account for that discrepancy and I am a little surprised by this. I'd be interested to learn if this was among the recent changes that were not part of the Bishops' Conference oversight or even ICEL's scrutiny. My A-level Latin did not cover ancient capitalisation! To quote one translation of the 'Te Deum' I wish we might never be confounded.
NorthernTenor wrote:If they were to pay more attention to textual matters ...
Better still, don't employ composers as such to do a job that isn't necessarily where their skills lie (tho' if my suspicions as to the identity of one or two of them are correct, I wouldn't necessarily say ...).
I think your suspicions (as demonstrated on other blogs) are unfounded, and in fact those folk are precisely the ones whose work has been getting the thumbs-down from the panel.
Southern Comfort wrote:I think your suspicions (as demonstrated on other blogs) are unfounded
I usually find, SC, that when I follow up a bald assertion of yours with a little leg-work, or know something about it in the first place, that you're wrong, and that the more baldly you assert the more likely it is to be so. My disagreement is not with a process to ensure textual fidelity, but with the scope, ambiguity and lack of transparency of the way this has been implemented by Ecclestone Square, in marked contrast to how it's done elsewhere. No-one has demonstrated, here or elsewhere, that these concerns are unfounded. Essentially, there have been two kinds of response: some ignore the issue, and some say how useful the non-textual advice is. In both cases, it reflects the tendency of many good Catholics to think the best of their Church's functionaries. Unfortunately, experience tells us that lack of transparency combined with uncritical trust encourages all sorts of ills, from inneficiency and meddling (which we see in this case) to worse.
Can we please avoid gratuitous personal attacks. If, NT, you have evidence that SC is wrong on a point that he/she makes, by all means air it, otherwise, let's stick to the issue on the thread, which is the publications of the decisions made by the Panel, which I know a lot of people are finding helpful.
If there is a desire for a debate on the more general aspects of the Panel's existence, that would be better had on another thread.
You who may not have noticed, DP, but my comment was in response to one of SC's. The day the moderators here clamp down on the things some people say, rather than the responses to them, will be a happy one.
Discussion of panel decisions without comment on the panel's purpose and form just ignores (as they say) the elephant in the room, and the proposal that the elephant shouldn't be mentioned in its vicinity hardly speaks of impartial moderation.
