The New Texts: Formation (discussion)

[NorthernTenor]

De gustibus non disputandum, I guess. But some people's gusti aren't deserving of a great deal of respect. NT, you sound like an adolescent scoffing at love songs, having never experienced what the song is about. Tell me, have you ever experienced a gathered assembly united in sung prayer?

Yes, mcb. And perhaps its says something about the narrowness of that school's liturgical spirituality that you suggest the analogy and ask the question. A matter for formation, perhaps.

[presbyter]

Before this discussion diverts too much, perhaps, along the path of likes and dislikes concerning musical style and taste, spare a thought for the likes of me and my colleagues who have to proclaim the new presidential prayers. I (and I know I am not alone) have begun to use the new translation of the Liturgy of the Eucharist at weekday Masses and it's taking some getting used to. EP2 flows well and I confess, I appreciate it. EP3 does not flow so well, in my opinion, and I need to practise how to breath, where to pause etc… so that the meaning of the text comes across. EP1 looks rather daunting - long, long sentences broken up by commas. I think I will need several hours of practice on that before a public proclamation.

It is in the manner of proclamation that the new texts will be assessed as public prayer..... and the clergy are going to need a lot of help. Our next deanery meeting is going to tackle this subject.

(By the way - the manner in which the texts are set out in the Missal does help - so thanks to ICEL for insisting on a uniform layout.)

For readers who have so far only come across the new translation of the parts for the people, try proclaiming this aloud. It is all one sentence.

On the day before he was to suffer he took bread in his holy and venerable hands, and with eyes raised to heaven to you, O God, his almighty Father, giving you thanks he said the blessing, broke the bread and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take this, all of you, and eat of it: for this is my Body which will be given up for you.

[mcb]

A matter for formation, perhaps.

Cantare amantis est. (St Augustine)

[DrT]

I'm rather new to the search for a new mass setting for the new words and I recently found this through the MusicaSacra website.

http://jbancks.com/home/?page_id=232

We tried the setting with our choir and it was accepted widely. Several other parishes in the UK have indicated that they will be trailing it. Any comments?

[Nick Baty]

Some very nice parts – I particularly like the Lamb of God – but, to be honest, I think our congregation would struggle with most of it, particularly the Sanctus.
However, what interests me is the difference between pulication in the UK and the US.
Here one must provide links from the Missal chants.
This appears not to be the case in settings from the US.

[Southern Comfort]

http://jbancks.com/home/?page_id=232

This setting, like others in the US and notably in New Zealand, would not get through the England and Wales approval process, both for the reason that Nick adduces and because the Sanctus, acclamations and Great Amen do not have musical material in common to add coherence to the Eucharistic Prayer which is a requirement in E&W.

Although I agree with the E&W position on this coherence, I point out yet again that there has to be consistency between the different approval processes. As long as different rules apply in different territories, the process will not be respected. E&W's requirements are far more stringent than anywhere else, as well as not limiting themselves to a concordat with the text as other countries do.

[NorthernTenor]

Some very nice parts – I particularly like the Lamb of God – but, to be honest, I think our congregation would struggle with most of it, particularly the Sanctus.
However, what interests me is the difference between pulication in the UK and the US.
Here one must provide links from the Missal chants.
This appears not to be the case in settings from the US.

http://jbancks.com/home/?page_id=232

This setting, like others in the US and notably in New Zealand, would not get through the England and Wales approval process, both for the reason that Nick adduces and because the Sanctus, acclamations and Great Amen do not have musical material in common to add coherence to the Eucharistic Prayer which is a requirement in E&W.

Although I agree with the E&W position on this coherence, I point out yet again that there has to be consistency between the different approval processes. As long as different rules apply in different territories, the process will not be respected. E&W's requirements are far more stringent than anywhere else, as well as not limiting themselves to a concordat with the text as other countries do.

The purpose of the process in England & Wales is laid out clearly in Appendix I, para 2, of the Department for Christian Life & Worship's Guide for Composers: it is to"review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text". Guidance about non-textual matters in the wider document and elsewhere is just that: it may or may not be wise, but it should have no bearing on the Panel's decision to pass or fail (as opposed to any advice it offers). If it does, then the Panel is going beyond its remit. Are NB and SC speaking in knowledge of cases where this has been so?

[presbyter]

The purpose of the process in England & Wales is laid out clearly in Appendix I, para 2, of the Department for Christian Life & Worship's Guide for Composers: it is to"review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text".

Whereas the panel seem to be reviewing according to the Guide for Composers. Someone, somewhere, I think, has been told to shorten an introduction to a Sanctus because the music, as it is, interrupts the flow from the end of the Preface into that text too much. Yet there's complete concord with the ICEL text in the piece.

I have a feeling that our panel would reject this refrain setting of the Glory to God by Mike Joncas (click on the sound file) because firstly, it is too long and secondly, there's too much repetition. Yet I can buy this setting and use it because it is available as an American import. (Not that I would ..... not really my style!)
http://www.giamusic.com/search_details.cfm?title_id=11343

SC is right, in my opinion. There should be international agreement between Bishops' Conferences (and ICEL, their servant) on how the texts may be treated musically and precise and clear guidelines published.

(By the way - click on some of the other sound files of the Joncas setting. Would our panel tolerate the different musical styles within one setting?)

[Southern Comfort]

Click on the PDF link lower down to see the whole setting previewed.

Other notable features, apart from those presbyter has already pointed out, which would presumably not get past the UK panel: optional tropes in the Lamb of God, and "Lord, O Lord, have mercy" (etc) in the Penitential Act.

[NorthernTenor]

The purpose of the process in England & Wales is laid out clearly in Appendix I, para 2, of the Department for Christian Life & Worship's Guide for Composers: it is to"review musical settings for conformity to the published liturgical text".

Whereas the panel seem to be reviewing according to the Guide for Composers. Someone, somewhere, I think, has been told to shorten an introduction to a Sanctus because the music, as it is, interrupts the flow from the end of the Preface into that text too much. Yet there's complete concord with the ICEL text in the piece.

The problem is, of course, that the terms of reference are so badly drafted that those Panel members so minded can drive a cart and hobby-horse through their expressed purpose. It may also be that specialist Panel members feel they have to justify their appointment by doing something over and above that simple purpose, especially if they're being remunerated. Combine these problems with the Panel's anonymity, absence of transparency and lack of accountability, and you have a quite predictable problem in the making (a number of us predicted it, anyway).

[Nick Baty]

Other notable features....which would presumably not get past the UK panel: optional tropes in the Lamb of God, and "Lord, O Lord, have mercy" (etc) in the Penitential Act.

So is the UK Panel over scrupulous or do the US bishops not care enough?

[Southern Comfort]

So is the UK Panel over scrupulous or do the US bishops not care enough?

The former. Plus inconsistent, as I've previously pointed out, and perhaps childish, too — for example, instead of saying "This accords with the text, apart from one or two errors of capitalization and punctuation [which have, incidentally, been mostly caused by the succession of different versions of the Order of Mass, all of them with differences between each other in these areas]— so please fix those things and everything will then be fine", they say "Approval withheld because you've got a couple of commas and capital letters wrong — hahaha!". At least, that's how it comes across.

The comparison is not just with the US bishops. Other countries are taking the same relaxed, adult stance.

[Southern Comfort]

Someone, somewhere, I think, has been told to shorten an introduction to a Sanctus because the music, as it is, interrupts the flow from the end of the Preface into that text too much. Yet there's complete concord with the ICEL text in the piece.

I assume this is a reference to a certain Scottish composer whose music made a brief but well-publicised foray into English liturgical life a few months ago. I seem to recall a lengthy introduction somewhat reminiscent of bagpipes....

[presbyter]

Today is the first day of June - the memorial of Saint Justin Martyr.

I can't help thinking that life would be so much more simple and that there would be much less liturgical conflict if we celebrated the Roman Rite according to his accounts.

[quaeritor]

. . . if we celebrated the Roman Rite according to his accounts.

Any chance of a brief summary for us less educated folks? (Or did I miss something higher up?)

Q