GIRM adjustment

[quaeritor]

Having just been sent a link to the original item on the Chant Cafe website by a worried member of my choir I thought I would trawl through this thread to see what the answer should be - not a wholly rewarding exercise I have to point out.

It should be very simple - presumably the translators knew what they were trying to convey, and the Bishops knew what they were approving as the translation and Rome knew what Rome was authorising as the translation so unless you are positing a sort of latter day tower of Babel scenario designed just to sow chaos among us opinionated musos it must be possible to ask some representative of any or all of those august bodies just what they actually meant.

I'd like simple answers to three simple questions:
1. Is there now really a revised GIRM - should I chuck out my battered copy of the "previous" one and get a new one?
2. Where this new GIRM differs from CTM which should I follow?
3. Why are we arguing about what is a "chant" as distinct from a "hymn" or a "song" (and I take the point expressed earlier in the thread that the translators were aware of a difference as illustrated by their reference within one paragraph to the Communion "chant" and the post-Communion "hymn") when there is the catch-all that any alternative we wish to use must come (as I understand is indeed currently the case) from a "collection approved by the Bishops' Conference" - of which, to my knowledge there are none?

I think we should be told.

Q

[Dom Perignon]

The Chant Cafe, whilst considering the 2011 version of GIRM, is still looking at the version applying in the US and there is no basis upon which that version is to apply anywhere else (see the website of the US Bishops' Conference). The version currently on the England and Wales Liturgy Office website is that which is currently applicable in England and Wales and can still be downloaded (the CTS hard copy edition is out of print and will probably not be reprinted until after all of the editions of the new translation of the Missal, some of which have not yet gone to print, are safely completed, in print and available in the UK). I understand that some printing errors in GIRM have been corrected in the Missal (as per Southern Comfort's post), but no fundamental changes have been, or are being made.

If I become aware of any change in this at any time in the future (and I will become aware of any changes) I will immediately post it on this forum.

[quaeritor]

Thanks Dom P for a quick and clear response, - so far . . .

Presbyter started this by quoting

I [not Presbyter] 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.

- so this "coordinate" bit is a misinterpretation?

I think my second question still stands mutatis mutandis (ie if the existing GIRM and CTM disagree) but I can't support that with chapter and verse at the moment.

My third Question however is still clear: where are these approved collections? (When I said: "to my knowledge there are none", I didn't mean: "I know there are none", I meant: "I don't know that there are any" - if I may be permitted "are" with any" - Oh the delights of English !)

Q

[Dom Perignon]

ICEL's role is to make translations that can be used throughout the English-speaking world, subject to variations requested by individual Bishops' Conferences which get approval. I think the magic words in Presbyter's posting are 'to add the approved US variants', which make all the difference.

There is no 'approved collection' for England & Wales. There was a project to create something of the sort, but it has ground to a halt. I strongly suspect that, once the Liturgy Office has dealt with the rush of new Mass compositions and got the new translations fully up and running, we will start to see some movement towards having approved collections. The likelihood is that the approval will be based on doctrinal matters, not musical taste (rather like we have with new music for the new Mass translation). I suspect that we all forget that the E&W Liturgy Office has extremely limited resources, very few personnel, little funding ...and virtually no office space! There is a very tight limit to what it can achieve at any particular time.

As for comparisons, I think we will have to wait until the copies of the missal that are now in production arrive here in early autumn before we can really make any. Until then,we in England & Wales have a translation of GIRM that is for current use and is available via the E&W Liturgy Office website, and we can safely work according to that. I hope that is helpful.

[NorthernTenor]

I suspect that we all forget that the E&W Liturgy Office has extremely limited resources, very few personnel, little funding ...and virtually no office space! There is a very tight limit to what it can achieve at any particular time.

Maybe it would help, then, if the Panel were told to limit itself to its stated purpose, rather than spending its time on hobby-horses * ...

* Composers' Guide, Appendix I, para 2.

[Dom Perignon]

NT, this thread is not really the one for that point! Of course, the Panel members are not the "working staff" of the Liturgy Office - who may well wish that they hadn't been given the extra admin involved either (although I have not heard anything from any of the staff to suggest that this is his or her view)!

[FrGareth]

Until then,we in England & Wales have a translation of GIRM that is for current use and is available via the E&W Liturgy Office website, and we can safely work according to that.

That might not be 100% true, DP! Earlier this week I found a presentation for school chaplains on the liturgy office website, which stated

In the Dioceses of England and Wales Holy Communion is to be received standing, though individual members of the faithful may choose to receive Communion while kneeling. However, when they communicate standing, it is recommended that the faithful bow in reverence before receiving the Sacrament.

I was pleasantly surprised to read this, as CTM 210 had prescribed the minimal sign of "walking solemnly in procession" to Communion as the way the British should show reverence. But on what authority could the liturgy office say this? A quick check of the blogosphere revealed that this is to be inserted in the GIRM for England & Wales.

Bloggers elsewhere have asked "what's the point" of this amendment. It has at least two positive points for me - first, that - as a priest obedient to the mind of our bishops - I can now teach First Holy Communion candidates to make a concrete sign of reverence rather than merely processing; and second, that if parishioners ask about kneeling, I no longer have to give the general principle of the need for a sign of unity with every member of the congregation doing the same thing, because the rubric now makes explicit mention of individual preference.

[NorthernTenor]

NT, this thread is not really the one for that point! Of course, the Panel members are not the "working staff" of the Liturgy Office - who may well wish that they hadn't been given the extra admin involved either (although I have not heard anything from any of the staff to suggest that this is his or her view)!

The way the Liturgy Office has implemented the Permission to Publish process has resulted in an excess of work for Martin Foster, Bishop Hopes and whatever administrative support they have. If the Process were limited by design and management to its stated purpose, it would not have been possible to use it as an excuse for delay in dealing with the new GIRM translation. The Process as we have it is a model of how a bureaucracy expands work to fill time to the point where it (or its friends) can claim it is under-resourced.