PANEL decisions

[NorthernTenor]

Peter, you started this thread so that people could share their experiences of Panel decisions (in relation to the setting of the new Mass translation to music) and so assist others who might be going through the same process. The Panel process is to do with adherence to the text (albeit that it may be going a bit further than that), not whether or not the text is 'orthodox' (for want of a better word).

The 'nihil obstat' process is entirely separate and relates to whether or not the text is so 'orthodox' or contains anything damaging to faith or morals. As you will be aware, that is determined by the theologian who reviews it and determines whether there is, or is not, anything wrong with it. If he finds that there is nothing wrong (ie 'nihil obstat' - 'nothing hinders' roughly translated), it is for the relevant Ordinary to issue an imprimatur (ie 'let it be printed').

One only needs to review the comments from Nick Baty and the responses to it to see how the issues become confused and the thread moves away from its original purpose. I can see the merit of having a thread dealing with the 'nihil obstat' process and, possibly, a thread considering whether the two process are, or are not signs of any trend or a good or bad thing (provided the argument is reasoned and dispassionate!).

I can understand your wish for a separate thread to discuss the 'nihil obstat' process, DP, not least to address the apparent comprehension-challenge amongst the comments on it. To imply, tho’, as you appear to, that this thread should avoid mention of the systemic problems that cause the worst experiences of the Panel process is unreasonable; it is like the Emperor’s court conceding that His Majesty’s public nudity may after all be a matter for discussion, but not in the context of this particular walk-about, thank you.

[NorthernTenor]

The Panel process is to do with adherence to the text (albeit that it may be going a bit further than that)

I like your dry understatement, DP. Very droll.

[Southern Comfort]

It appears that in the USA the Nihil Obstat process is quite separate from the permission to publish process. The former is done by whoever happens to be the diocesan censor in the diocese where the publisher resides, the latter by personnel of the Bishops' Committee for Divine Worship.

The problem with diocesan censors is that, as elsewhere, they have their own views. Their theological training may have taken place many years before, and they may not have kept up to date with subsequent developments. In the event of a publisher feeling that a censor's queries or decisions are unfounded, there is always the option of requesting a meeting with the censor and taking their own theologian-consultant with them. It is, of course a delicate area.

The problem in England and Wales, where no decision at all is forthcoming from whatever censor is operating as part of the Panel (moving swiftly back to the topic, Dom P !), has not yet been encountered on the other side of the Pond.

I have now been informed that only settings of ICEL set texts for Holy Week need to be submitted to the panel - e.g. Behold the wood..... and the Exsultet.
Settings of ICEL model texts - e.g. The Reproaches - should probably be submitted directly to ICEL.

Is there to be an official statement about this?, one wonders. And the word "probably" merely emphasises the nebulosity of the whole thing. Will there be a grid showing which are considered "set texts" and which are considered "model texts" so that both composers and parish liturgists are clear about the options ? There are some pretty hideous texts in the revised Holy Week translations — for example, Ubi Caritas, Crux Fidelis and the Blessing of Water at the Easter Vigil.

In the past, there has not necessarily been a requirement to submit to ICEL. A request for permission to publish has resulted in a publishing contract. It is only with the latest translation of the Order of Mass that there has sometimes (with large amounts of material) been a requirement to submit actual proofs.

As I understand it, ICEL's stance on the Exsultet is that they want the Missal chant to be used wherever possible, warts and all, so it is conceivable that they might refuse permission for another setting, regardless of what the Panel says. On the other hand, St Meinrad's Abbey in Indiana has (in the person of Dom Columba Kelly) provided a complete alternative collection to the ICEL Order of Mass and Preface chants which it is being allowed to sell to the public. (Dom C thinks that the Missal chants are sadly wanting, and he is right.)

[Peter Jones]

As I understand it, ICEL's stance on the Exsultet is that they want the Missal chant to be used wherever possible...........

That'll be a pretty short list of places SC, given most clergy's reaction to the chant.

ICEL possibly refusing permission for more singable settings? Well, one publisher I know of is submitting at least three of these for assessment at the imminent panel meeting.

[alan29]

I would be interested in seeing a setting that avoids the gulping sound the results from setting a rising phrase to "Exult." It is such a poor word when compared to the fine English word "rejoice."

[NorthernTenor]

I would be interested in seeing a setting that avoids the gulping sound the results from setting a rising phrase to "Exult." It is such a poor word when compared to the fine English word "rejoice."

It is, though, subtley different in meaning, Alan.

The gulping sound is the fault of the singer, not the setting. If there is a tendency to it, a little sensitivity (and perhaps a recognition that it is not helpful to seek problems in anything connected with the new translation) should mitigate.

[alan29]

I would be interested in seeing a setting that avoids the gulping sound the results from setting a rising phrase to "Exult." It is such a poor word when compared to the fine English word "rejoice."

It is, though, subtley different in meaning, Alan.

The gulping sound is the fault of the singer, not the setting. If there is a tendency to it, a little sensitivity (and perhaps a recognition that it is not helpful to seek problems in anything connected with the new translation) should mitigate.

Mea culpa ..... in the spirit of the times.

[mcb]

Mea culpa ..... in the spirit of the times.

Only once?

[NorthernTenor]

Perhaps I ought to add the others!

[Peter Jones]

I have now discovered that submission of the Short Form of the Exsultet alone is permissible. Composers need not set both long and short forms.

[alan29]

Mea culpa ..... in the spirit of the times.

Only once?

Don't want to overdo it .... I am British, after all.

[NorthernTenor]

I have now discovered that submission of the Short Form of the Exsultet alone is permissible. Composers need not set both long and short forms.

Why should you have to discover it, Fr? It can't possibly be that they're making this up as they go along?

[Peter Jones]

It can't possibly be that they're making this up as they go along?

Credo nos in fluctu eodem esse NT

or as Google translation services might put it -

Credo nos in eodem wavelength

[mcb]

Spero vos pariter felices esse.

[Peter Jones]

I hope you have equal cats???? (Molesworth - E minus)

(I wasn't even called for interview after applying to ICEL for a job as a third-class translator)