Happy Monday! This Magnificat is by Victoria. Stay tuned for more next week!Love your mother!
Archive for the ‘Music’ Category
I’m sure most readers are familiar with the normal Roman Rite passion tones. Recently, I have discovered the dominican tone, which is more melismatic.Have a blessed Good Friday.
Recently, I received the findings of a recent study that the CMAA sponsored (along with a few other organizations), which finds that 72% of young priests (under 50) like the corrected translation that we are now using. I am very heartened by this news, and I am happy to see it.
I have been likewise very encouraged by the heightened sense of awareness and reverence for the sacred mysteries, brought about by so many of these wonderful young priests and the new missal, particularly the new emphasis on sacred music that I have been seeing in many places, focusing on a new dignity, upon the singing of the prayers of the celebrant and the congregation, and the proper antiphons of the Mass being more frequently sung, as the council intended.
Often when I hear the prayers of the Mass, I am appreciative of their newfound dignity, with a style which elevates them above our everyday speech (which is what singing the prayers also does, by the way), making clear to us that we are not just talking to a buddy on the street, but that we are engaging in worship of the omnipotent creator of the universe.
One of the texts in the new missal that I think has been particularly improved is the Exsultet, the Easter Proclamation. Take a good look at this section below:
|The sanctifying power of this night dispels wickedness,
washes faults away,
restores innocence to the fallen,
and joy to mourners,
drives out hatred,
and brings down the mighty.
|The power of this holy night dispels all evil,
washes guilt away,
|On this, your night of grace, O holy Father, accept this candle, a solemn offering, the work of bees and of your servants’ hands, an evening sacrifice of praise, this gift from your most holy Church.
But now we know the praises of this pillar, which glowing fire ignites for God’s honor, a fire into many flames divided, yet never dimmed by sharing of its light, for it is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.
|O truly blessed night,
when things of heaven are wed to those of earth,
and divine to the human
|Night truly blessed
when heaven is wedded to earth
and man is reconciled with God!
Do you see that whole paragraph that got skipped? Look at this beautiful wording: “this candle, a solemn offering, the work of bees and your servants’ hands [...] for it is fed by melting wax, drawn out by mother bees to build a torch so precious.” The language of worship has always been elevated and beautiful, separating it from our everyday speech, which the Exsultet does particularly well.
Some have said that the old ICEL translation is superior because it is simple and people can understand it. I’m not here to discuss those right now, they can be discussed in other places, or maybe in a future post. Right now, I’m trying to point out the superiority of the new translation by pointing out how the old translation left out many of the concepts in the Latin texts in many cases, but also in more than a few cases where they simply omitted entire paragraphs! This is not the only example, it also happened in the prayers for Ash Wednesday, and quite possibly many other cases.
What are your experiences with the new translation? Has your quality of music improved at your parish, or your have you noticed a change in people’s attitudes toward the Mass since the new translation? Talk it up below!
If you have been around the conversations within the Church Music Association of America for any length of time have, you have surely encountered discussion of an issue that manifests itself most often in the following question:
Why don’t the antiphons in Simple English Propers match the antiphons in our missalettes in the pews, and the ones in the Roman Missal?
(If I had a nickel for every time I have answered this question, I surely could be enjoying a comfortable retirement on a distant tropical island right now!)
The simple answer to the question is this: Simple English Propers sets to music the antiphons of the Graduale Romanum in English translation, while most popular publications (such as Magnificat, various hand missals, the ubiquitous disposable pew missals, etc.) usually print the antiphons of the Roman Missal. The antiphons of the Roman Missal and Graduale Romanum, while they are often the same, are in various cases different sets of proper texts. A neutral translation of the Graduale Romanum (from the Solesmes Gregorian Missal) was used in SEP, which could be freely shared online without copyright restriction, and as an unfortunate result, the Roman Missal translations were not used where the Missal and Graduale are in fact the same.
There are numerous further explanations and speculative analyses of the phenomenon of Roman Missal vs. Graduale Romanum propers, all of which can easily be found through a quick web search, and most of which are beyond the grasp, care or interest of those who are working in real-world, parish settings.
The conventional answer, common practice, and liturgical law
The conventional conclusion that the CMAA has maintained at for many years now is that when the 1969 Roman Missal was promulgated, the antiphons of the Roman Missal (including only the Entrance and Communion Antiphons, not the Offertory Antiphon) were intended to be spoken when the antiphon of the Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex was not sung. This distinction is clear in the rubrics of the universal law of the GIRM to this day.
The same rubrics, however, stated that “another suitable song” could be sung in place of the antiphons of the Graduale Romanum or Graduale Simplex, and we all know that this is the source of the proliferation of singing just about any kind of hymn or song at the Entrance, Offertory and Communion processions of the Mass in place of the antiphons that are appointed by the Church to be sung at these times.
Since we have never been given official, approved English translations of the Graduale Romanum, in practice, those who wished to sing proper antiphons in English defaulted to singing the approved translations found in the Roman Missal, and this practice has gone on for more than 40 years in certain locales in the English speaking world. In no way was this ever illicit, since the antiphons of the Roman Missal are perhaps among the best “other suitable songs” that can be imagined!
Because of the success of this practice, the Bishops of the United States of America voted to include the singing of the Roman Missal antiphons as part of the first option in the Roman Missal, Third Edition (see GIRM 48 and 87).
Thus, in particular law (which canonically trumps universal law) in the United States of America today, the antiphons of the Roman Missal form a part of the first option for the sung texts of the Entrance, Offertory and Communion processions, along side the antiphons and psalms of the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting.
This is binding liturgical law for all faithful and obedient Catholics in the United States of America.
Roman Missal antiphons in Rome
It is striking to observe an unconventional but illustrative development in the papal liturgies in Rome this year: The Entrance Antiphon that is being sung in this year’s Chrism Mass in St. Peter’s Basilica is not the prescribed antiphon prescribed in the Graduale Romanum (which is Dilexisti iustitiam), but is the antiphon of the Roman Missal! Further, it appears to be in a newly composed, “neo-Gregorian” musical setting:
|H/T Steven van Roode, musicasacra.com/forum|
In fact, in a particular way, this effort is taking form in a brand new English chant resource that will begin shipping in two weeks.
It is the Lumen Christi Simple Gradual, edited by myself, and published by Illuminare Publications (learn more here). This resource is the true successor and fulfillment of its predecessor, Simple English Propers (which also composed and edited by myself).
There is no other resource like this. It will be available in both Assembly and Choir editions, and it contains the fully sung Order of Mass in English, eighteen Mass Ordinaries in English and Latin chant, and a complete repertoire of simple English chant settings with texts that are drawn from the Church’s primary sources for the sung liturgy—the Graduale Romanum, Roman Missal, and Graduale Simplex—and arranged for successful parish use, according to prescripts of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, Musicam Sacram, and Sacrosanctum Concilium.
The source translation that is used is the Roman Missal, Third Edition, and new translations have been made where they are needed (e.g. the Offertory Antiphons, among others), and approved for liturgical use by the USCCB Secretariat for Divine Worship and by episcopal imprimatur. This assures the greatest textual continuity between the texts of the Missal and Graduale, and accords with the requirements of Liturgiam Authenticam.
It is arranged with the needs of todays parishes in mind, and it builds not only upon the experience of the past 5 years, but also upon the wisdom of the past 50 years. The musical settings that the Lumen Christi Simple Gradual contains already form a part of the core repertoire of numerous parishes across the English-speaking world, and early online releases have helped hone and perfect the chant settings and their arrangement over the course of the past three years.
Happy Monday! Yet another from Orlando de Lassus, using gregorian tone IV for the chant verses.Love your mother! Don’t forget: if you have suggestions for future Monday Magnificat compositions, feel free to send them to me by clicking here.
A homily by Fr. James Bradley of the Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham.
We join with shouts of ‘Hosanna’ today because we are citizens now of the Jerusalem to come. Jerusalem is the place in which God brings about his saving acts, and it those very same works which are made present in the life of the Church. As members incorporate of the mystical body of Christ through baptism, we are already participants in the life of the new Jerusalem, the Church, and so rightly come to enter the worship of that place in the banquet of sacrificial love which is the relationship of the most blessed Trinity, glimpsed by us in our Eucharistic offering.
This text encapsulates one of the most important themes of this upcoming holy week: Christ’s willing sacrifice on the cross for His (and our) eventual glorification. We could all do well to meditate upon this text as we enter this sacred week. Christus…
You’ve no doubt seen the video or heard the story about the priest who sang Leonard Cohen’s “Hallelujah!” at a wedding.
On Facebook, I have many friends who are liturgists, music ministers, youth ministers, and clergy. There, I’ve noticed that those who are liturgists mostly cannot stand what this priest did in the video. Those who are youth ministers tend to be much more enthusiastic about this. Music ministers and clergy seem to be on both sides. Yet most all agree that the priest has a lovely voice and sang this song very well. And almost everyone I know loves the original song by Leonard Cohen.
I’ve already tried to explain to my Facebook friends why this is not an example of good liturgy. But the arguments I hear back from those who are overjoyed at what this priest did are not about what constitutes good liturgy but about what brings joy to the assembly. I lament that we’ve gotten to the point where for some, “good liturgy” equals joyless liturgy.
The social media conversation around this video is very telling. Liturgists (myself included) have not done ourselves or others any good by beating people over the head with rubrics. Yet rubrics do have value, as does human emotion. How can we bridge the divide?
So, without recourse to “It’s against the rules,” what is a helpful way of explaining why this is so inappropriate?
Well- I think you have to toss out all the liturgical explanations, and questions of style, or even questions about secular music in church in order to get at the root of it. Those things are all important, but the atrocity being committed here is much deeper than that, I think.
Let’s even lay aside questions about the theology of the song (which is a bit sketchy), since people don’t tend to care about that sort of thing (and God can withstand stupid things being said about Him).
The first big problem is that the wedding liturgy is about the couple, not the priest. (It’s about God, first. But, whatever, right?) The singing drew attention away from the couple and directed it toward the priest. This is selfish and narcissistic, and robbed the couple of what is rightfully there’s.
Priests tend to forget how a wedding functions in the life of the couple. For a priest – he may preside at hundreds or possibly thousands of weddings in his lifetime. A couple gets married only once. It doesn’t matter if the priest is bored, or has heard all the prayers before, or has to do this same thing again tomorrow. Each wedding is a unique event in the life of a couple, and a priest should not impose his own personality onto that.
Which brings me to the second point, the really disturbing one.
In singing this song in particular, the priest is not just intruding on the wedding celebration, but is intruding on the couple’s relationship. If the song has little meaning for them, the intrusion is only annoying. If it has real meaning to them (which, according to the social media advocates of this nonsense, it does for many many people), the intrusion is profoundly disturbing, even creepy.
Does anyone listen to lyrics anymore?!
It’s really a profoundly moving song, but its not even remotely appropriate to a wedding. It’s about the ways that lovers hurt each other and the glory that can be found even in that pain.
Love is a lot of things, including sometimes a cold and broken “hallelujah.” But a wedding is specifically about the “victory march” of love.
Because of its focus on the private aspect of love (hidden pain and secret joy), and not the public aspect (celebration) it is a remarkably intimate song, with the speaker of the song addressing it to his (or her, I guess) lover.
From a liturgical standpoint, you could fault the lyrics for their vagueness. But that misses the point. The mystifying and pseudo-biblical imagery allows any couple with a shared history to write their own meaning into it, to put fleshy details into the cosmic and romantic poetry. Any couple who finds this song specifically meaningful has a meaning in it that is unique to them.
It is really beyond inappropriate for a priest to publicly insert himself that way into a couple’s private story, taking on the vocal role of one of the lovers. Honestly, it creeps me out a bit, and makes me wonder about that priest’s personal life and his own private longings and struggles in a way that the public should not ever be privy to.
More than a violation of rubrics or good taste or even theology, it is a violation of the sacred rites and private stories that bind lovers together, like a confused idiot stumbling unaware upon two people sharing their first kiss, and not knowing enough that he should turn back around and let them be.
EDIT/>The priest apparently did not sing the original text of the song. I didn’t know this because I honestly could not bring myself to listen to it.
The problem with that is that everyone already knows the original lyrics. The song is embedded into our culture, and the story that we each associate with it- whatever that story is – cannot be separated out just by making it more “optimistic.”
Either the song is meaningless to the couple, in which case there’s no point in doing it, or the song has meaning to them, in which case this is an intrusion into their story. Changing the lyrics just makes it worse. And, since the priest didn’t ask the couple ahead of time, or give them any indication it was going to happen, he had NO IDEA whether the song was meaningful or not to them, no sense of whether he may have been intruding.
The people who advocate a “liberal/progressive” (for lack of a better term – I know it’s not a good term) liturgical paradigm, and/or the people who promote creative adaptations to liturgy and bemoan adherence to rubrics, those people tend to scream about sensitivity, about personalization, about the needs and longings of the individuals. This event, and all events like it, are contrary to all those values. It is ham-handed and awkward. The couple in the video may have been delighted, but the next couple may be appalled, embarrassed, hurt, or just annoyed.
It isn’t the violation of rubrics and theology that primarily bothers me. It is the potential violation of the couple’s relationship that I find so appalling.
For the last two USCCB meetings, no proposal from the floor has received less support from the bishops than any suggestion that the recent translation of the Roman Missal should be reviewed or challenged in any way.The most recent tiresome proposal fro…