Society of Saint Gregory

Am I correct in thinking that in the English translation of 3rd edition of the Roman Missal the Glory to God (and, indeed, the Lord have mercy, the Holy, Holy, etc) is an ICEL text?

I ask this because ICEL's current Publication Policies document (http://www.icelweb.org/PubPolicy.PDF) says:

ICET texts are texts that have been produced by the International Consultation on English Texts, an ecumenical body of which ICEL was a member. These texts have been revised by the successor to ICET, the English Language Liturgical Consultation (ELLC). The following is a list of these texts:

The Lord's Prayer
Apostles' Creed
Nicene Creed
Kyrie Te Deum
Gloria in Excelsis
Sursum Corda
Sanctus/Benedictus
Agnus Dei
Gloria Patri
Benedictus (Canticle of Zechariah)
Magnificat (Canticle of Mary)
Nunc Dimittis (Canticle of Simeon)

The texts, whether in their original form (1975) or as revised by ELLC (1988), are in the public domain and as such do not require permission for reproduction. It is sufficient to acknowledge the source of the text...

If, as I suspect, the new translations are not ICET, but ICEL, then the copyright situation is very different.

I had hoped that the draft Composer's Guide on our Liturgy Office's website would make all plain, but the relevant Appendix has yet to be drafted!

Yes, the texts of English translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal, including the Order of Mass will all be copyright ICEL. One of the effects of Liturgiam Authenticam was that translation bodies put working ecumenically on a lower footing and therefore producing common texts became less of a priority.

The ICEL website is slightly misleading as the ELLC series of text (which were revisions of the ICET texts) were never approved for use in the liturgy.

I would have thought that the final page of the ICEL policy document on Internet use gave some hope for the future - as it appears to allow free use, without permission needed as long as the text is properly acknowledged.

But am I right in thinking that published settings will first have to be passed by a panel? One for each country?

Nick Baty wrote:But am I right in thinking that published settings will first have to be passed by a panel? One for each country?

Thomas has raised this matter, too. If true, it would raise problems of principal and practice. We should therefore look for clarification from the Bishops of E&W as soon as possible.

Rome has always desired that Bishops' Conference have some process for the approval of liturgical music. It was recently re-iterated in GIRM 393 - as I understand the localised version of the text was the amendment of the Holy See. ICEL, as a mixed commission of Bishops' Conferences, should normally check that authorisation is given by local Conference before giving copyright permission - this in particular applies to editions of ritual books.

I presume such a process for music would work similar to an imprimatur. To receive an imprimatur the text had to meet criteria (presumably the previously mentioned composer's guide is some indication though it will need to be revised in the light of the 3rd edition of the Missal). Two further aspects of an [i]imprimatur[ is that it is related to formal publication (i.e. it is necessary when making it available to others) and it is to be sought in the place of publication. So, for example, something published in the States (where they have had such a process for a number of years) and distributed here would not need to go through a second process.

What problems of principle and practice was NT thinking of?

I knew Gabriel would have the answer. And as the check is simply for textual accurary – rather than musical judgement – then there's no problem. Those who stick to the texts will get the go-ahead.

Sadly, this won't stop certain publishers producing metrical or other texts but it's a start.

Now, what about composers who write, for example, a set of choir-only eucharistic acclamations. Textually accurate but incorrect functionality? Will publication be denied?

It seems to me that textual fidelity is the starting point. And fidelity is to the liturgical text as a whole.

Who knows the bishops may wish to exercise musical judgement - though I think it would be much harder to provide identifiable criteria which were faithful to the catholicity of the Church.

Thanks. You should be a politician!

I am quite happy being a civil servant of sorts.

Gabriel wrote:Yes, the texts of English translation of the third edition of the Roman Missal, including the Order of Mass will all be copyright ICEL. One of the effects of Liturgiam Authenticam was that translation bodies put working ecumenically on a lower footing and therefore producing common texts became less of a priority.

I thought so. Thank you.

Gabriel also wrote:The ICEL website is slightly misleading as the ELLC series of text (which were revisions of the ICET texts) were never approved for use in the liturgy.

Yes, I realized after I posted that these were not the same as our current Missal texts.

Anyway, very helpful. Thanks again.

NorthernTenor wrote:

Nick Baty wrote:But am I right in thinking that published settings will first have to be passed by a panel? One for each country?

Thomas has raised this matter, too. If true, it would raise problems of principal and practice. We should therefore look for clarification from the Bishops of E&W as soon as possible.

Who is Thomas?

Gabriel wrote:Rome has always desired that Bishops' Conference have some process for the approval of liturgical music. It was recently re-iterated in GIRM 393 - as I understand the localised version of the text was the amendment of the Holy See. ICEL, as a mixed commission of Bishops' Conferences, should normally check that authorisation is given by local Conference before giving copyright permission - this in particular applies to editions of ritual books.

I presume such a process for music would work similar to an imprimatur. To receive an imprimatur the text had to meet criteria (presumably the previously mentioned composer's guide is some indication though it will need to be revised in the light of the 3rd edition of the Missal). Two further aspects of an [i]imprimatur[ is that it is related to formal publication (i.e. it is necessary when making it available to others) and it is to be sought in the place of publication. So, for example, something published in the States (where they have had such a process for a number of years) and distributed here would not need to go through a second process.

The problem with all of this is that different Bishops' Conferences allow different things ─ for example, the Canadian Bishops currently encourage additional acclamations in the Eucharistic Prayer, but no US-based publisher will publish settings that do this ─ but the imprimatur or approval from the local Conference is based solely on the geographical location of the publisher. As most of our publishers are now US-based, this is a real problem. It means the American Bishops' liturgy secretariat are effectively deciding what other conferences may or may not use.

SC,

Sorry - Thomas == dmu3tem.

As to your most recent post: spot on. The confusion and unintended consequences arising from the combination of the application of commercial copyright law and practice to liturgical texts with ecclesiatical constraints on publication - it's developing into an unholy mess (a bit like this sentence).

NorthernTenor wrote:Sorry - Thomas == dmu3tem.

Whoops, I should have thought of him. Mea maxima culpa!