PANEL decisions

[NorthernTenor]

If, like me, you see some ambiguity between GIRM 53; CTM 148; Guide for Composers 51 & 52..... I have it on good authority that composers can submit purely choral settings of the Glory to God to panel. Note also sections 19 through 21 of the Guide.

I am not considering this form of composition myself but someone might.

** sigh **

It's good of you to post this hint on behalf of good authority, P, but it does rather beg some significant questions and illustrate the laughable failings of the Process as currently instituted. Why can't good authority itself make this clear? What business is this matter of a process whose stated purpose is textual fidelity? How are we to second guess the niceties of good authority's current interpretation of what is and is not correct? Why should we have to, other than out of deference to the amour propre of the Liturgy Office?

[Nick Baty]

Not quite with you, Presbyter. Although CTM is vague with the use of the word "normally", the guide for composers uses exactly the same words as GIRM: “it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone”.

So, yes, presumably the Panel would consider a setting for choir alone although.

I don't think there's any great mystery here. It is not like the Sanctus where the rules are definite:

GIRM 216: "The Sanctus is sung or recited by all the concelebrants, together with the congregation and the choir.".

CTM 192: "[The Sanctus] belongs to priest and people together. Of its very nature, it is a song and should be sung... Choir or cantor parts may be also be sung if they facilitate and enhance the congregation's participation".

Guide for Composers 78: "The Missal envisages the Sanctus as sung in its entirety by the people. If refrains are used, care should be taken that the Sanctus retain its character as an acclamation of the entire assembly."

[presbyter]

Not quite with you, Presbyter. Although CTM is vague with the use of the word "normally", the guide for composers uses exactly the same words as GIRM: “it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone”.

"Normally" is a vague, vague, vague word. Juridically, it can mean "as a norm" or "as a rule" - i.e. this is what you do - or it can mean simply "usually but not necessarily so".
The Guide quotes GIRM 53 in §51 - but then in §52, the choir-alone option is not mentioned. I think that if it is allowed - and §52 is supposedly our Bishops' interpretation of §51 - it should be mentioned for reasons of clarity and for the avoidance of doubt.

i sigh in unison with NT ....... and pray that when the Guide is revised it is Promulgated (not approved) after having been sifted thoroughly through the lens of a Canon Lawyer (if that's not mixing my metaphors too much).

[Nick Baty]

But as it's the Panel, and therefore the Guide, you're talking about, surely it's fairly clear.

[presbyter]

But as it's the Panel, and therefore the Guide, you're talking about, surely it's fairly clear.

To me, §52 in the Guide could be interpreted as - "GIRM says you can but the Bishops want nothing to do with this, so let's not mention it." Yet that is not what is being said.

BTW - NT - you're almost - but not quite yet - on a par with Mgr Crichton in the delightful use of the Gallic epithet. I say 'not quite' because there's one he uses in The Mass that I still have not found the meaning of. Blowed if I can remember what it is though.

[Nick Baty]

Sorry, P. Can't see that. Seems fairly straightforward:

“it is sung either by everyone together, or by the people alternately with the choir, or by the choir alone”.

Although, like you, I wouldn't dream of writing a choir-only setting.

[presbyter]

Sorry, P. Can't see that. Seems fairly straightforward:

You are quoting GIRM 53/Guide 51. That is indeed straightforward. (Why the qualification "fairly"? You're being imprecise now.)

Now look at Guide 52. It is written, to my mind, as an attempt to give clear information and distinct instruction. But there is no indication whatsoever that it is to be interpreted in the light of 51. A Canon Lawyer would drive a coach and horses through this. The phrase "Though the refrain form is popular and allows easy participation…" is utterly redundant - irrelevant information for the intent of the paragraph, so put it in an introductory preamble, perhaps. Note also the unfortunate use of the passive voice, "It is recommended...... " That begs the questions, "By whom?" and "By what authority?" If the sentence is supposed to read "The Liturgy Office recommends...", that would be appalling too, for an inanimate building cannot recommend anything. If the sentence means "The Bishops of England and Wales recommend...." just say so. Everyone knows where they are then.

National and local government and many large secular organisations, over the last couple of decades, have learned how to write clear, precise instructions and guidelines.
There's a readily available OUP guide on how to do this.

Yet Ecclescake Square seems incapable of using the language of basic philosophical logic, clarity of instruction, good plain English, and legal precision. Mind you, as an inanimate object, it couldn't become capable.

[Nick Baty]

Yes, I see your point, Presbyter. For some reason, I had always read that to mean that entirely choral settings may be submitted. Now didn't the '98(?) translation present the Gloria as one of several introductory options? How sad that never came to be. But I'm OT now and bears are lurking.

[alan29]

Just out of interest, when did the comma creep into in Kyrie, eleison? Have I missed something all my life?
I have done a bit of Googling and so far I can't find an edition with it?
Have the translators put it in to justify retrospectively their comma-ed translation.
I wouldn't normally bother, but it was one reason for a "withheld editorial" decision.

[presbyter]

Just out of interest, when did the comma creep into in Kyrie, eleison?

I possess a 19th century altar Missal with comma present - and a 1948 Missal with comma absent. I know where I can view a 17th century Altar Missal to check for you but not in the next few days. The 1948 Missal received its Imprimatur from the Diocese of Leeds - not as hot on commas then as now.

[alan29]

That's very interesting. So to be truly authentic is to accept either. So someone has decided to come down on the side of pernickety for no very good reason?
Have to admit that my response to the panel was to shrug shoulders and not re-submit.
Quick work BTW.

[Nick Baty]

Have to admit that my response to the panel was to shrug shoulders and not re-submit.

You don't have to. If it's simply "Witheld editorial" then correct the comma, email the amended proof to the Liturgy Office and they send an amended certificate very quickly. You only have to resubmit if it's "Witheld".

[alan29]

Have to admit that my response to the panel was to shrug shoulders and not re-submit.

You don't have to. If it's simply "Witheld editorial" then correct the comma, email the amended proof to the Liturgy Office and they send an amended certificate very quickly. You only have to resubmit if it's "Witheld".

Cheers Nick, but "Nah."
I find myself adopting that response more and more when I've been up against ecclesiastical officialdom. It seems to bring out the "Kevin" in me, for some reason.

[Nick Baty]

But for the sake of adding a comma?
Pop it in and you share your music with the world.

[presbyter]

Sanctus submissions again....

If this is approved - as it has been -

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, Holy Lord God of hosts.

Will this be....?

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord, Lord God of hosts, Lord God of hosts.

OK? One 'Lord' too many? Oh for some really clear guidance! Come on panel, you've had enough experience by now to develop your case law. Let's have better guidance than we've got in the Guide for Composers. Please put up a page on the Liturgy Office website to show what is and what is not acceptable........ an act of loving your neighbourly composers who, as yourselves, are trying to serve the Church.