Lamb of God/Jesus Lamb of God

[Mithras]

Since the text for the Agnus Dei is not changing with the revised translation, and since the alternative text of "Jesus Lamb of God... Jesus bearer of our sins....Jesus redeener of the world" was approved for use when sung, can we assume that this concession will still obtain after Advent 2011?

Mithras

[alan29]

Approved by whom? The bishops seem to have handed all such responsibility over to Rome and their attitude seems to be "Computer says No."

[Mithras]

Permitted, then, but not proscribed. And computers can be reprogrammed!

[docmattc]

This very issue was mentioned in passing at the recent composers' group meeting in Ware. The opinion was mooted that the concession has not (yet!)been rescinded. Whether the vetting panel approving new compositions for publication will take this view is another matter.

[alan29]

This very issue was mentioned in passing at the recent composers' group meeting in Ware. The opinion was mooted that the concession has not (yet!)been rescinded. Whether the vetting panel approving new compositions for publication will take this view is another matter.

...... however if you write your own and don't submit it for publication........

[presbyter]

The Liturgy Office's new Guide for Composers makes no mention of an alternative text. I myself am assuming that this alternative text has now gone the way of all flesh - but with no hope of resurrection.

[Peter]

My understanding (though completely unauthoritative) is that there never was a formal "concession" as such but that the paraphrases simply happened and no-one did anything to curb them. At one course of workshops in the early 1980s on music in the liturgy I was given some paraphrased Mass texts the tutor had set to standard hymn tunes, offered as an easy way of getting congregations to sing the texts. Presumably the same thinking lay behind the "Israeli Mass", born of an era when guitars and "folk Masses" were very fashionable, and the other paraphrased settings in various published hymnals. It may well have been argued that as the standard translation was a paraphrase of the Latin other paraphrases were equally acceptable. Now with the insistence from Rome on a text that is a literal translation (however clumsy and however difficult to set to congregation-friendly music) of the Latin, such alternatives are likely to be more explicitly prohibited.

The problem will be how to enforce the use of the new texts. The fact that unauthorised paraphrases have been condoned over the past 40 years will make it harder to convince congregations and music groups not to use them: the argument could be voiced along the lines "Father always let us use these texts even though they were officially not allowed, so why can't he let us continue to use them now?" The next stage of the argument could then be "St Wossname's are still using the old texts, so it's OK for us to do so as well". I encountered exactly that argument recently in a church using the original version of the hymn Dan Schutte has now altered to "O Lord, I know you are here" - another example of a liturgical practice (in this case use of a form of address to God) that was never officially approved, got out into public use and many years later had to be officially banned, with limited success as this example shows.

(By the way, I don't know why Dan Schutte adapted his hymn quite so clumsily: "Father, I know you are here" fits the stress of the original better and uses the form of address Jesus particularly instructed us to use.)

Back on topic, has anyone any suggestions for how to counter these arguments if congregations raise them? Although I have heard a few people say they like the ideas behind the new texts, I have also heard a lot of opposition to them. The positive experience of using them at Summer School, among people keenly interested in good liturgy, cannot necessarily be translated directly to congregations whose idea of good liturgy is a four-hymn sandwich they can all join in and the Israeli Mass or a similarly easy sing-along.

My personal interest in this thread is that "Jesus, Lamb of God" is one of the paraphrases in use for a long time in my church. The previous PP (who made a lot of changes from his predecessor's practices) was happy to retain it on the grounds that the original "Agnus Dei" prayer was part of a much longer litany and the structure of this alternative reflects these origins. I can foresee a lot of opposition and resentment if I try to get rid of it.

Regarding Alan29's suggested loophole, my understanding is that if you write musical settings of the new texts you can use them in your own church without seeking approval from the Liturgy Office; it is not a concession to write paraphrases for your own church. The question remains of how much flexibility you can exercise, notably in repeating words or phrases, in preparing settings for local consumption. I hope the seminars on 19th and 26th March will provide some guidance on this point. Once again, enforcement at local level is another major problem, which may turn out to be (if it isn't already) an elephant in the room.

[VML]

Peter, that is a useful summing up of what has happened over the last 40 years.
It really has been a case of 'How do we get the people to conform? What sanctions are possible or even desirable?'
In this parish, I am am seen as the fanatic who likes to use the proper words.
I have a great working relationship with our PP, but he says he simply can't get worked up about it, which is why he allowed the alternative so called creed for Peace Sunday.
I have been called 'liturgist' (not by PP, I hasten to add,) as if it's something nasty. Interesting times ahead.
I had an interesting take on this from someone who goes to the next parish because he likes orthodoxy: Pray for inspiration if you are composing music for the Mass. If you have to change the words to fit your music, then you are not inspired....

[alan29]

I'm finding the language of forbidding and enforcing a bit uncomfortable. this is a church we are talking about, yes?

[Nick Baty]

My personal interest in this thread is that "Jesus, Lamb of God" is one of the paraphrases in use for a long time in my church.

Except it isn't a paraphrase. It is an ICET text which was approved for use in England & Wales. I don't know if it's among the regional variations our bishops have requested from Rome. The Israeli Mass etc were never approved or allowed. In fact, they are specifically banned in Inaestimable Donum, among other documents.

[VML]

I'm finding the language of forbidding and enforcing a bit uncomfortable. this is a church we are talking about, yes?

But it's not half as uncomfortable as Mark 9:29 etc., yesterday's Gospel.
'If your hand should cause you to sin, cut it off....'
The Church has had quite a lot to say about obedience, conscience and humility over the years, even if enforcement is not fashionable. And those who mention such things could be said to be lacking in humility....

[Southern Comfort]

My understanding (though completely unauthoritative) is that there never was a formal "concession" as such but that the paraphrases simply happened and no-one did anything to curb them.

The Bishops' Conference, at the prompting of the National Liturgical Commission, in 1971 formally authorised use of the ICET text of the Lamb of God so long as it was sung. At the same time they authorised the use of the Apostles' Creed, once again provided that it was sung.

That is how both those texts were able to appear with music settings in Sing the Mass.

A setting of the ICET Gloria by Michael Dawney appeared 'ad experimentum' in the 1972 edition of the hymnal Praise the Lord. It was by then already known that this text would become the official text in the near future. At the time of publication, the then-Secretary of the NLC (Mgr Humphreys) was asked whether this setting could actually be used. His memorable reply was "Yes, certainly — but not at Mass" ! It was, however, subsequently permitted for use at Mass in 1973 when it was included in the Order of Mass of the 1973 translation of the Roman Missal.

The Apostles' Creed is not an issue, since the new edition of the Roman Missal includes it as a permitted option, especially at masses with children. But for the ICET Lamb of God to be forbidden, the Bishops' Conference would need formally to abrogate that text, or formally to abrogate all previous translations (since the 1966 texts of the Ordinary can apparently still technically be used, if anyone wanted to). It is unlikely that the Bishops would do this of their own volition unless so requested by the members of the current Liturgy Committee of the Conference or so advised by the Liturgy Office. It is not clear why either of those bodies would wish to do that, since this further anti-ecumenical gesture would simply aggravate the hurt already felt by other Christian denominations at the introduction of the new texts, which will already drive an unfortunate wedge between the Catholic Church and other churches. At any rate, until and unless such an abrogation happens, the ICET text continues to be permitted (as, indeed, does the ICET Gloria, as indicated above).

[quaeritor]

The Bishops' Conference, at the prompting of the National Liturgical Commission, in 1971 formally authorised . . . (I've not quoted the whole - it's just above) . . . until and unless such an abrogation happens, the ICET text continues to be permitted (as, indeed, does the ICET Gloria, as indicated above).

I'm finding the language of forbidding and enforcing a bit uncomfortable. this is a church we are talking about, yes?

C'mon, guys, one of you is not living in the real world.

Sadly, I fear it is alan29.

Does anyone else have an opinion?

Q

[quaeritor]

. . and just for info (genuine ignorance here) - who are/were the "National Liturgical Commission" and the "Liturgy Committee of the Conference" - are/were they one and the same?

Q

[alan29]

The Bishops' Conference, at the prompting of the National Liturgical Commission, in 1971 formally authorised . . . (I've not quoted the whole - it's just above) . . . until and unless such an abrogation happens, the ICET text continues to be permitted (as, indeed, does the ICET Gloria, as indicated above).

I'm finding the language of forbidding and enforcing a bit uncomfortable. this is a church we are talking about, yes?

C'mon, guys, one of you is not living in the real world.

Sadly, I fear it is alan29.

Does anyone else have an opinion?

Q

I fear I am living in the real world and am trying to get my head around this blatant example of the exercise of power motivated by a highly contentious partisan view of worship, both of which seem totally at odds with any theology of the church or the gospels it claims to be based on.
What we seem to be doing here is mimicking adolescents as we try to discover where the boundaries are and how far we can push against them, despite the wish of those who "would be our servants" that we just put up and shut up.