Minor Anomalies

[quaeritor]

A thread for simple clarification of some minor points - (nothing I expect, of the weight of the question about when to say the Litany or not).

I notice that to start the Palm Sunday procession a Priest, a Deacon or a lay minister my say/sing either

Dear brethren (brothers and sisters), like the crowds who acclaimed Jesus in Jerusalem, let us go forth in peace.)

or, more simply,

Let us go forth in peace."

Only in the latter case should the assembly respond "In the Name of Christ. Amen."
Is there some reason (other than a misprint) for this? Is there any realistic chance that some stalwarts in the congregation will not leap in with the response if the longer form is used, while staring pointedly at the choir as if to say "Have you all nodded off then?" - and what do I do then? - shout "Stop that!" in a peremptory fashion ?

Q

[John Ainslie]

Q is quite right to point out this anomaly.

For the purposes of comparison, I turned up the invitation for the Procession at The Presentation of the Lord (February 2). That too has two possible invitations, the second having words identical to the Easter Vigil second option. Like the Easter Vigil, the text/music is followed by 'In this case, all respond: In the name of Christ. Amen.' - ICEL's 'Chant Book' adds the word 'latter'.

The odd thing about the music is that, whereas the formula for the first option is the same for both Presentation and Easter Vigil, the formula for the second option and response (for the same words) is different. For the Presentation it's:
Let us go forth -- in -- peace. / In the name of Christ.-- A --- men.
C------------------- A --- C ------ / C--------------------------- A ----- C

whereas for the Easter Vigil it's
Let us go forth in peace. / In the name of Christ. A --- men.
C--------------------- A ------ / C-------------------------------- A

Slap on the wrist, ICEL Music Committee!

[Southern Comfort]

Also annoying, the four different versions of "The Lord be with you" scattered throughout the Missal, seemingly designed to confuse presiders.

Opening Greeting (p. 549), before the Final Blessing (p. 706), and solemn Gospel Dialogue (p. 1496): A - A - G - A - A

Gospel Dialogue (p. 559 and 1494): C - C - A - C - C

Preface Dialogue (p. 566 and gazillions of other places throughout the book): G - GA - B - A - A

Alternative Opening Greeting (p. 1479) and before the Final Blessing (p. 1482): C - - - - - - - A


I generally suggest to presiders that they use the Gospel Dialogue version for everything except the Preface. If they can't manage that, chant it recto tono.

[quaeritor]

Well, in the event no-one said or sang anything, so after a suitably awkward pause I launched into the hymn and we all set off.

However, it would have been interesting to come to some conclusion in this thread. SC's observations fill me with an uneasy feeling that there is no rational thought behind the composition of the Missal chants - it feels rather as though someone who was not busy one particular week was detailed off to knock up some settings to meet a deadline. Can you draw any parallels with new translations into any other language, SC? The differences you highlight between different occurrences of the same text are obviously not enforced by any awkwardness of some of the new phraseology itself as discussed in the thread about the dismissal.

I'm brought back again to the question I asked in yet another thread - has English been singled out as a special case in the retranslation saga? - are other languages also having to retranslate? It would have been logical to expect that, given the emphasis on uniformaty and conformance, the chanted responses would have the same "tune" accross the languages (with allowance obviously being made for differences of accentuation such as that discussed in the context of the dismissal).

Q

[alan29]

Didn't the Spanish and Germans refuse to accept imposed translations?

[Southern Comfort]

Didn't the Spanish and Germans refuse to accept imposed translations?

The Spanish speakers have a new version of the Missal coming in 2013, it appears. It seems basically to be the existing Mexican version, which may be its saving grace. There was a huge hoo-hah in the 1990s over differences between Castilian Spanish and the Spanish spoken in the different Latin American countries (all of which have their own variant dialects and vocabularies) when Rome tried to impose what were perceived as words that only Spanish hidalgos would use. Rome backed down in the end.

I have not heard what is going on in the German-speaking countries, but the German Bishops' Conference certainly rejected the new version of the Funeral Rite that Rome tried to impose on them, in favour of the one they had been using before. They said the new text was not good German, and that they, the bishops, were the best qualified to determine what was good German usage for their country. It appears that they got away with it, but then they do speak the same language as the current pope and were probably able to present rather cogent arguments and examples.

The Italian Bishops' Conference is currently tearing its hair out over what Rome is trying to impose in a new Missal translation. No one knows how this situation will resolve itself.

The French-speaking countries, in response to what was seen as an unacceptable translation that Rome tried to impose, set up a brand new commission to work on the Missal for those countries. It is not in any hurry, and is doing its work with great seriousness and deliberation. It is not expected to produce anything before 2015 at the earliest, and then it will take several years for the various episcopal conferences to process it and approve it. Possibly by the time it eventually goes to Rome for confirmatio the present staffers of the CDW will have retired or have been replaced by others who have not only some linguistic skills but some theological/ecclesiological savvy and some pastoral common sense.

[alan29]

I fear the particular problem with English is that it is used as lodestone when translating into minor languages, where the number of people able to translate from Latin might be minimal.
If that is indeed the case, a solution to our particular problem might have been to have had one translation as the sanctioned alternative to Latin for translators, and then another in real English. That way our introduction to Holy week might have avoided the truly horrid "since the beginning of Lent until now" which has no place in the English language.

[quaeritor]

How true, Alan29, how very true! - I just could not believe my ears when I heard that - it's just the classic "beginners' English" mistake. Many other examples of poor translation are arguable even if only on the defence that "it's crossword compilers' English" but that is unarguably just plain WRONG!

Grumpy yet again!

Q

[Nick Baty]

With you all. PP used EP1 on Maundy Thursday. I'm not exactly thick but it was so very difficult to get my head round the long clauses. And I could see many faces around the church shutting down.

[John Ainslie]

Another instance of non-English occurred in the invitation to the last of the ten Solemn Intercessions on Good Friday:

Let us pray, dearly beloved,
to God the Father almighty,
that he may cleanse the world of all errors,
banish disease, drive out hunger,
unlock prisons, loosen fetters,
granting to travellers safety, to pilgrims return,
health to the sick, and salvation to the dying.

The last two lines are a noun phrase dependent on 'God the Father almighty', not an adverbial phrase dependent on 'loosen fetters'. Therefore the last three lines should read either

unlock prisons and loosen fetters,
granting to travellers safety, to pilgrims return,
health to the sick, and salvation to the dying.

or

unlock prisons, loosen fetters,
and grant to travellers safety, to pilgrims return,
health to the sick, and salvation to the dying.

While I'm at it, has anyone else noticed the curious punctuation at the Commemoration of the Living in EP1? It reads

For them, we offer you this sacrifice of praise
or they offer it for themselves
and all who are dear to them:

The comma after 'them' is quite unnecessary and would seem to govern the whole of the following two main clauses, which is a nonsense. If a comma is needed at all, it should be after 'praise', delimiting the first main clause.