Bumper Music & Liturgy

[Nick Baty]

The latest issue has just landed on the mat with a great thud – it's huge! Delighted to see the Music Planner now goes up to the end of May (Pentecost Sunday) as many of us are now busy planning Lent and Easter. So a huge well done to the editorial team who work so very hard.

Good to see a piece by my guru, Bill Tamblyn. Now, what do we have to do to persuade him to compose more than occasionally?

[Calum Cille]

Now, what do we have to do to persuade him to compose more than occasionally?

Stop mucking about with the English translation of the liturgy.

[Peter Jones]

In answer to the question in the grey box on page 50 ......... something (at a diocesan level).

[gwyn]

Stop mucking about with the English translation of the liturgy.

Indeed. Leave it alone now that it's almost good.

[Calum Cille]

... it's almost good.

[musicus]

Stick with the topic, please.

[JW]

Very impressed with this edition, lots there to come back to and reflect upon. Much of the content is very thought provoking and worthy of debate.

A couple of points regarding the liturgy planner:

The list of approved settings of the new translation omits Margaret Rizza's Mass of St Benedict (published by RSCM) which was approved some time ago. Presumably it fell off the bottom when being copied... and I see Margaret is now an SSG member.

Psalms for Sundays seem to be mainly restricted to 5 published copies. Other settings are available, I am aware of the Euguene Monaghan 'With Heart & Voice', the settings contained in certain hymnbooks, the settings made freely available here:

http://www.qopchoir.com/ourmusic.html

http://www.mikeanderson.net/

http://www.singakad.com/index.html

http://www.ccwatershed.org/chabanel/

I was also interested to see that we are not allocating all the grant monies that we have available.

I enjoyed reading 'The Ordinariate' article but ended up puzzled as to how, in fact, the Ordinariate will differ from the Roman Rite. Mgr Burnham seems to suggest that their Masses will have more than 2 servers, will sing the Ordinary texts, will have incense at Sunday Masses and will sing the priestly prayers. He also says that "whatever the Ordinariate will be bringing it will not be cathedral Evensong". I have to confess that, on reading this article, I find it very difficult to understand why it was considered necessary to set up an Ordinariate, because the practices mentioned don't really distinguish it from the Roman Rite, IMHO.

[musicus]

A couple of points regarding the liturgy planner:

The list of approved settings of the new translation omits Margaret Rizza's Mass of St Benedict (published by RSCM) which was approved some time ago. Presumably it fell off the bottom when being copied... and I see Margaret is now an SSG member.

Psalms for Sundays seem to be mainly restricted to 5 published copies. Other settings are available

Thanks, JW. Margaret Rizza's setting may well have "fallen off the end" - if so, apologies - but it is possible that it had not yet made the list when this issue of Planning the Liturgy was being put together (I see that another new setting has now ben added).

As to the psalms, we are necessarily selective (as with the hymn books), though we should have liked to have included the Monaghan settings (but didn't have a copy to hand).

Planning the Liturgy is a work in progress, and the editors are always pleased to hear your suggestions.

[Peter Jones]

Planning the Liturgy is a work in progress, and the editors are always pleased to hear your suggestions.

Here in the open for all to see or in private?

[musicus]

Why not here? Then the ideas could be debated.

Alternatively, e-mail editors@ssg.org.uk

[Gedackt flute]

Stop mucking about with the English translation of the liturgy.

Indeed. Leave it alone now that it's almost good.

No it's not good. It's mediocre and misleading.

[Dom Perignon]

Comments on the quality of the new translation are off topic so far as this thread is concerned. By all means debate that quality (in a sensible, dispassionate and reasoned manner please!) in a new thread.

[Peter Jones]

Why not here? Then the ideas could be debated.

OK. Well you said that here is acceptable.

Liturgy planner – the notes for readers.

I’m not quite sure at whom these are aimed (thinking of my own parish readers) and how they might assist the practice of good proclamation.

Are we trying to – do we need to attempt to emulate publications such as Scripture in Church (where authors are not anonymous)?

A few examples that raise an eyebrow;

PtL 10 – Gospel commentary last two sentences: ‘The veil… its tearing signified the rupture of the relationship.’

In the space available, there is no room for footnotes and references. However, that causes the notes to exhibit a somewhat dogmatic quality, rather than them coming across as someone’s opinion. “The Society of Saint Gregory says……”

To the comment above, I want to say ‘What about interpreting the tearing of the veil in the light of Hebrews 6, 9 and 10 – opening up the Holy of Holies?’

PtL 11 - ‘…before the festival of Passover (which is historically more probable)’.
Why, even tangentially, feel the need to inform readers that there’s a debate that has been going on for years about the Synoptic and Johannine presentation of the Last Supper? For sure, Pope Benedict has waded in by suggesting the Passover nature of the meal and that Jesus was using a different calendar but the papal comments have provoked the writing of a subsequent, hefty, scholarly tome criticizing his views and arguing that if this was the case, the last Supper would have been on the Tuesday. Rather than make a questionable statement about historical probability – which is likely to be shocking to readers who have never engaged in any formal scripture study – why not say something such as: in John’s Gospel, Jesus’ sacrifice takes place at the same time as the sacrifice of the Passover lambs in the Temple? Don’t you think that might be more edifying – even a ‘light bulb’ moment?

PtL 12 – The Isaiah reading. Does the reader really need to engage in the interpretations of the identity of the Servant? Wouldn’t the last two sentences suffice?

I’m really not sure how profitable the notes for readers are. Perhaps the editors could sit down in conclave and think of the target readership and the desired outcome of good proclamation (hand in hand with the personal, spiritual development of the reader). My own parish readers would find these notes baffling and phrases such as ‘new dispensation’ most odd. Isn’t that something to do with a pharmacy?

I think something less prolix and in a gentler, familiar, even homiletic style – rather than an analytical style – could be better. For me, there’s too much information offered and too much prior knowledge assumed. There’s not enough account taken of the tabula rasa possessed by many (most?) who read in church.

Perhaps the editors could address the question, ‘what prior knowledge does this set of notes assume?’ and then, considering the target reader is unlikely to have acquired that knowledge, work from there.

‘Exile? What Exile?’ Catholics don’t read the Bible? Largely still true, I think. But we do hear a lot of it proclaimed and in itself, that proclamation is ‘alive and active’. Take heart that simply, in the proclamation of the Word, grace is at work and that ‘anyone who has ears’ will receive something from the proclamation in itself, without having to delve into erudite commentaries. Could the short, descriptive phrase given above the readings in italics in the Lectionary be a focus for simpler notes? Perhaps so.

In conclusion. As a student in homiletics classes, I was taught never, never, never, never, never to use technical terms, even if they were then going to be explained. So if I had preached ‘There is a midrash – a Jewish reflection drawing out the deeper meaning of a teaching……’ (PtL – 23) I would have failed the class, and dismally so. Technical terms are for a technical readership/audience. Use of technical terms in a homily – and possibly in a set of notes for readers who themselves are non-technical – is obfuscatory and presents the homilist/author as a clever-clogs, more interested in showing off than preaching the Word of God.
I’m sure that that is not the intention of the author of the present notes but it is something, perhaps, to bear in mind.

[Peter Jones]

Why not here? Then the ideas could be debated.

I wait in hope……

[MaryR]

Thanks very much for this, Peter. So, in essence, you're suggesting simpler notes coupled with, perhaps some more practical tips on proclaiming the reading? As a reader, that chimes with what I would find most useful. We will feed this back to the working group that is currently reviewing the planner.

The group would also appreciate comments on the musical elements of the planner. Does anyone have any suggestions for changes/improvements? If you're someone who uses another planner in preference to the SSG one, can you tell us why? The more feedback we have, the better!