Thanks to Jeffrey A. Tucker at The Chant Café, I have become aware that the Holy See ordered ICEL to coordinate the three extant English translations of the GIRM (US, Australia, and England and Wales) into one translation, and to add the approved US variants. It is this version that is being printed in our new Roman Missals and is now available from the USCCB in its Liturgy Documentary Series, #14. I confirmed this with Father Richard Hilgartner at the USCCB. An important phrase from the IGMR 2000 in the last clause of Article 48 (“sive alius cantus, actioni sacrae, diei vel temporis indoli congruus”got lost in some translations and has been restored: “another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year.”
Perhaps the Liturgy Office could also clarify as to whether or not this adjustment was received in sufficient time for it to be included in the printing of the newly translated Missal?
The post at Chant Café talks the whole thing up absurdly - it makes the claim that the shift in the translation from liturgical song to liturgical chant indicates that everything except plainchant is now proscribed. I'm not sure where such a fundamentalist take would leave Byrd's Gradualia, or any polyphonic setting of the propers. The word cantus has meant lots of things in liturgical documents, and it still does, no matter how you translate it.
The order to print the England & Wales/Scotland/Australia Missal was given towards the end of April, and all the full-size altar missals are already printed and in the process of being shipped to Australia (the furthest away country that is sharing them). A copy which has reached this country was used for the first time at Mass at a clergy conference, at which I was present, on June 24th. Printing of the chapel-size and study editions is now in process.
However, a further list of errata came through after the presses had started to roll. It appears that this only involved errors of punctuation to footnotes in GIRM, but it is of course conceivable that the change mentioned by presbyter may have been among the errors/changes listed. Or that this change came through later still. And, for what it's worth, errors in the chants of the Missal are still being uncovered as we speak.
The presses had to start rolling in order to be able to deliver in time, particularly to Australia, even though the powers-that-be and the publishers knew that further lists of errata were likely. (These lists had been appearing at frequent intervals up to that point.) What we will have, therefore, is an imperfect altar edition, but a rather more perfect chapel edition and study edition.
Errors have always been one of the hazards of missal publication. In the 19th century, it took the two firms Marietti and Pustet the best part of a century to iron out errors in successive editions of the Missale Romanum so that eventually they had what could be described as a "perfect" edition. In the case of the forthcoming missal, many of the errors are due to the 2010 Vox Clara revision of the text the bishops signed off on in 2008. Another category of errors concerns typography and layout, and blame for these lies at the door of ICEL, which has been insisting that every publisher use its originations. I doubt whether the forthcoming edition will ever be reprinted as it stands, so whatever errors are there now will only be corrected when a revised version of the translation comes through.
mcb wrote:The post at Chant Café talks the whole thing up absurdly - it makes the claim that the shift in the translation from liturgical song to liturgical chant indicates that everything except plainchant is now proscribed. I'm not sure where such a fundamentalist take would leave Byrd's Gradualia, or any polyphonic setting of the propers. The word cantus has meant lots of things in liturgical documents, and it still does, no matter how you translate it.
The use of the word chant rather than song does, however, shift the centre of gravity - it makes it all the more difficult for clergy and musicians to blithely ignore the centrality of chant to our liturgical tradition, and the reiteration of that position by Popes and Council over the last century or so. As for Byrd and other polyphonic settings - renaissance polyphony is an outgrowth of western chant, and recognised by the Council as an excellent example of 'new' music that shares in those characteristics of chant that make it so fitting to the ethos of the Rite.
NorthernTenor wrote:it makes it all the more difficult for clergy and musicians to blithely ignore the centrality of chant to our liturgical tradition
On the other hand, those with an interest in kinds of music that don't fit so well, and maybe a visceral aversion to an element of tradition they associate with the Bad Old Days, will do their level best ...
NT - you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.
However, all I think has happened is that the English translation now reflects other translations. The French and the Italians have always used "chant". It just means a liturgical song, in my opinion, and has no specific bearing on Gregorian Chant. It is an umbrella term beneath which any appropriate musical style may shelter.
48. Il est exécuté alternativement par la chorale et le peuple ou, de la même manière, par le chantre et le peuple, ou bien entièrement par le peuple ou par la chorale seule.On peut utiliser ou bien l´antienne avec son psaume qui se trouvent soit dans le Graduale romanum soit dans le Graduale simplex; ou bien un autre chant accordé à l´action sacrée, au caractère du jour ou du temps, et dont le texte soit approuvé par la Conférence des évêques
48. Il canto viene eseguito alternativamente dalla schola e dal popolo, o dal cantore e dal popolo, oppure tutto quanto dal popolo o dalla sola schola. Si può utilizzare sia l’antifona con il suo salmo, quale si trova nel Graduale romanum o nel Graduale simplex, oppure un altro canto adatto all’azione sacra, al carattere del giorno o del tempo[55], e il cui testo sia stato approvato dalla Conferenza Episcopale.
presbyter wrote:NT - you are, of course, entitled to your interpretation.
However, all I think has happened is that the English translation now reflects other translations. The French and the Italians have always used "chant". It just means a liturgical song, in my opinion, and has no specific bearing on Gregorian Chant. It is an umbrella term beneath which any appropriate musical style may shelter.
48. Il est exécuté alternativement par la chorale et le peuple ou, de la même manière, par le chantre et le peuple, ou bien entièrement par le peuple ou par la chorale seule.On peut utiliser ou bien l´antienne avec son psaume qui se trouvent soit dans le Graduale romanum soit dans le Graduale simplex; ou bien un autre chant accordé à l´action sacrée, au caractère du jour ou du temps, et dont le texte soit approuvé par la Conférence des évêques
48. Il canto viene eseguito alternativamente dalla schola e dal popolo, o dal cantore e dal popolo, oppure tutto quanto dal popolo o dalla sola schola. Si può utilizzare sia l’antifona con il suo salmo, quale si trova nel Graduale romanum o nel Graduale simplex, oppure un altro canto adatto all’azione sacra, al carattere del giorno o del tempo[55], e il cui testo sia stato approvato dalla Conferenza Episcopale.
Quite. Any attempt to pin it down to gregorian chant is the triumph of prejudice over knowledge.
NorthernTenor wrote:The use of the word chant rather than song does, however, shift the centre of gravity - it makes it all the more difficult for clergy and musicians to blithely ignore the centrality of chant to our liturgical tradition ...
- In my view (gregorian) chant is in reality peripheral to our liturgical tradition. I do not see it ever achieving the popularity of, for example, Bernadette Farrell, or the St. Louis Jesuits.
presbyter wrote:..."chant". It just means a liturgical song, in my opinion, and has no specific bearing on Gregorian Chant. It is an umbrella term beneath which any appropriate musical style may shelter.
Hmm... Maybe that's the right way to interpret the liturgical documents. But now I think about it, we do tend to use the word chant for a particular style of sacred song. Not only plainchant, but other styles which (pace Calum!) are unmetered, with the rhythm dictated by speech rhythms. One of the remarkable things about the new Mass settings written for the new translation is that there are chant settings by composers (the Psallite composers, or Chris Walker, for instance) who twenty years ago perhaps wouldn't have considered writing in an idiom like that.
Chant for the rest of us, I'd like to think - not coupled to a Reform of the Reform agenda, or disowning the fruits of the liturgical renewal, but quietly reasserting the idea that simple chant ought to be part of the core vocabulary of Catholic worship.
johnquinn39 wrote:In my view (gregorian) chant is in reality peripheral to our liturgical tradition. I do not see it ever achieving the popularity of, for example, Bernadette Farrell, or the St. Louis Jesuits.
That's a wind-up, right? If not, it's nonsense. "Not popular" = "peripheral to tradition" is a total non-sequitur. And as a factual claim about Gregorian chant it's breathtakingly inaccurate. What sells more CDs, chant or the music of the SLJs?
presbyter wrote:Chant ........quietly reasserting the idea that simple chant ought to be part of the core vocabulary of Catholic worship.
I think you have a good point there mcb. Let me add cantillation to it, if I may. I really do wonder how many priests will heed the renewed encouragement to sing prayers.
