There was a CNS wire story Tuesday February 2nd about the new translation of the Missal and the Vox Clara report that came out on Monday. In the course of the story, the following was said:
Most English-speaking bishops’ conferences are preparing materials to introduce and explain the new translation with the hope people will begin using it in parishes at the beginning of Advent 2011.
But…today, Wednesday February 3rd, CWN writes about the same report:
The Vox Clara committee, set up to supervise the English translation of liturgical texts, met in Rome last week to review the latest translations of the Roman Missal which have been approved by the episcopal conferences of the English-speaking countries. The new translations should be ready for use at Mass in the US by Lent of the year 2011.
Now…is this just a matter of not clarifying details? It is possible, of course that the translations will be ready by Lent of 2011 but not implemented until Advent of 2011. Is that what was meant here? Or have different sources given information, one claiming that the texts will be implemented in Lent 2011, the other saying Advent?
Why is there not a “spokesman” out there for Vox Clara making sure that the story is consistent across platforms? This is irresponsible and builds the kind of negativity about the new translation that will make implementation more difficult whenever it takes place.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Monday, February 1, 2010
You Go, Pope!
From CWN Today:
(My emphasis and comments)
Pope Benedict XVI confirmed plans for his visit to Great Britain in September-- and offered some unusually blunt reflections (that's putting it mildly) on the situation facing the Church there-- in a February 1 address to a group of visiting British bishops.
The Pope told the bishops, who were in Rome for their ad limina visit, that he looked forward to his trip to their country. (but are the Bishops looking forward to this?) Although he did not mention specific dates, informed Catholic sources in London have confirmed that the trip will take place in September.
The Pontiff went on to say that the Church leadership in England and Wales "needs to speak with a united voice." (and as we'll see, it needs to be a distinctly Catholic voice) His words appeared to be a reference to the friction within the episcopal conference, and the willingness of some British prelates to countenance open dissent from Catholic teaching. (This isn't limited to England, of course) In an even more evident reference to that problem, the Pope went on to say:
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.
Is there a smack-down coming? You go, Pope!
(My emphasis and comments)
Pope Benedict XVI confirmed plans for his visit to Great Britain in September-- and offered some unusually blunt reflections (that's putting it mildly) on the situation facing the Church there-- in a February 1 address to a group of visiting British bishops.
The Pope told the bishops, who were in Rome for their ad limina visit, that he looked forward to his trip to their country. (but are the Bishops looking forward to this?) Although he did not mention specific dates, informed Catholic sources in London have confirmed that the trip will take place in September.
The Pontiff went on to say that the Church leadership in England and Wales "needs to speak with a united voice." (and as we'll see, it needs to be a distinctly Catholic voice) His words appeared to be a reference to the friction within the episcopal conference, and the willingness of some British prelates to countenance open dissent from Catholic teaching. (This isn't limited to England, of course) In an even more evident reference to that problem, the Pope went on to say:
In a social milieu that encourages the expression of a variety of opinions on every question that arises, it is important to recognize dissent for what it is, and not to mistake it for a mature contribution to a balanced and wide-ranging debate.
Is there a smack-down coming? You go, Pope!
Friday, January 29, 2010
The Gregorian Institute on Gregorian Chant
The website of GIA (The Gregorian Institute of America) has a page on Gregorian Chant resources for parish use. It is fascinating in many ways….first that a company named the “Gregorian Institute” would only devote two or three pages of a several hundred page website to...well…Gregorian music. But more fascinating, and a bit disappointing, is how they treat the whole subject of Gregorian chant.
The information given is really not of much use, but then again I suspect it is not supposed to be very useful. The goal seems to be to actually discourage the use of chant while showing that they are at least abiding by the letter of the law in their publications.
>>>>>
From the GIA website….
(My emphasis and comments)
Gregorian Chant for the Congregation
The Second Vatican Council stated (actually, it still says this)that the faithful should be able to sing the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 54).(It says that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. This is important because it makes clear that the Latin language is the important issue, not the chant settings. What steps have been taken by GIA to achieve this?) Catholic congregations in most parts of the world sing at least a few chants in Latin.( “Look! It’s being done elsewhere so we don’t have to worry about it!) But in the U.S., for the most part we have a ways to go in fulfilling SC 54.(Perhaps the understatement of the century…) One need not look far to find resources for basic congregational Latin chant—every major Catholic hymnal or worship aid includes basic congregational Latin chants. (OK..so they’re really token inclusions, but so what?) The easiest places to start are with the Kyrie (which in fact is in Greek) and the Agnus Dei. Then one might advance to the Sanctus and perhaps the Pater Noster. (Take note of the language here…”one need not look far”…”one might advance”…rather than “you can find”…or “you can then advance”. In other words, “one could do this if one were so inclined, but not YOU.) The Gloria and Credo are more difficult because of their length. (so…don’t ever attempt to sing them in Latin? We should never try anything difficult?) In any event, slow progress and pastoral sensitivity are advised. (Good Lord!…why would slow progress be advised? I don’t see any descriptions of works in their choral anthem catalogues claiming “One might sing this for the Sunday after Easter, but only after careful pastoral consideration. If one’s choir is successful in introducing this work, one might then advance to the more difficult selections, but do so slowly.”)
There are several collections with more extensive congregational repertoire: Iubilate Deo, Liber Cantualis, and Kyriale Simplex. (But since we just told you that it should take a long, long, long time to introduce even the basic congregational chants included in our fine hymnals, why would you ever need a more extensive congregational repertoire?)
GIA publishes an edition of an earlier version of Iubilate Deo in modern notation: Jubilate Deo.
(We’re not going to tell you what this is or why it might be useful….just that we do publish it. Notice that we replaced the difficult Latin "Iubilate" with the much more accessible "Jubilate")
Easier Gregorian Chant for the Choir
Many choirs will be looking for easier chant than is found in the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Triplex(?), especially at first. (Well...if you were encouraging them to look for chant at all they might be doing this, but you just told them to make slow progress and be pastoral) A good place to start is with any of the major congregational hymnals. (But…don’t look in the Parish Book of Chant…stick with the major hymnals!) The Latin chants found there are intended for congregations, but it is likely that congregations are not (yet) able to sing them. (Way to be encouraging GIA, way to be encouraging! I especially like the parenthetical “yet”.) The choir might (why not say “can”?) sing easier Latin antiphons, Latin chant hymns, or chant hymns in English. Hymns are an easy place to start because the same melody is repeated for each stanza of text. Because the melody of a strophic hymn is formulaic and not intrinsically tied to the Latin text, hymns are the one part of the Latin chant repertoire that can be sung in any language. (Well…they wouldn’t really be Latin chant repertoire then, would they? If we sing “O Come All Ye Faithful” in English, we’re not singing a Latin chant hymn simply because it was originally in Latin, are we? This is essentially trying to say that singing vernacular hymnody is a great way to fulfill the call to sing Latin chant. What absolute nonsense.)
Other easier collections for choir are Graduale Simplex and Cantus Selecti.
(We’re not going to tell you what these are either, but they are easier)
Gregorian Chant for the Choir (but not the easier stuff like above)
Much of the Latin chant repertoire was written for a trained choir.(So...my choir isn't "trained"?) Being more difficult, it was sung primarily in monasteries (not like your parish), cathedrals (not like your parish either), colleges (not a parish, so not like you either), and parishes with more extensive resources (more extensive resources than your parish, that is!) In the right circumstances (not gonna tell you what these might be, but they aren't circumstances that apply to your parish) , parish choirs can still sing some of this chant.
Graduale Romanum, Gregorian Missal for Sundays, Graduale Triplex.
(We’re not even going to tell you why we have these books listed here…but they contain some of the chant that you might be able to sing in the right circumstances at a monastery, cathedral, college or extensively resourced parish.)
>>>>>>
So….that is, in a nutshell, what GIA wants to tell you about the music for which their company is named. If you were a truly inquiring Director of Music trying to live up to the Church’s call to sing the music of the Roman liturgy, would this encourage you to do so?
The information given is really not of much use, but then again I suspect it is not supposed to be very useful. The goal seems to be to actually discourage the use of chant while showing that they are at least abiding by the letter of the law in their publications.
>>>>>
From the GIA website….
(My emphasis and comments)
Gregorian Chant for the Congregation
The Second Vatican Council stated (actually, it still says this)that the faithful should be able to sing the ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin (see Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, no. 54).(It says that “steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them. This is important because it makes clear that the Latin language is the important issue, not the chant settings. What steps have been taken by GIA to achieve this?) Catholic congregations in most parts of the world sing at least a few chants in Latin.( “Look! It’s being done elsewhere so we don’t have to worry about it!) But in the U.S., for the most part we have a ways to go in fulfilling SC 54.(Perhaps the understatement of the century…) One need not look far to find resources for basic congregational Latin chant—every major Catholic hymnal or worship aid includes basic congregational Latin chants. (OK..so they’re really token inclusions, but so what?) The easiest places to start are with the Kyrie (which in fact is in Greek) and the Agnus Dei. Then one might advance to the Sanctus and perhaps the Pater Noster. (Take note of the language here…”one need not look far”…”one might advance”…rather than “you can find”…or “you can then advance”. In other words, “one could do this if one were so inclined, but not YOU.) The Gloria and Credo are more difficult because of their length. (so…don’t ever attempt to sing them in Latin? We should never try anything difficult?) In any event, slow progress and pastoral sensitivity are advised. (Good Lord!…why would slow progress be advised? I don’t see any descriptions of works in their choral anthem catalogues claiming “One might sing this for the Sunday after Easter, but only after careful pastoral consideration. If one’s choir is successful in introducing this work, one might then advance to the more difficult selections, but do so slowly.”)
There are several collections with more extensive congregational repertoire: Iubilate Deo, Liber Cantualis, and Kyriale Simplex. (But since we just told you that it should take a long, long, long time to introduce even the basic congregational chants included in our fine hymnals, why would you ever need a more extensive congregational repertoire?)
GIA publishes an edition of an earlier version of Iubilate Deo in modern notation: Jubilate Deo.
(We’re not going to tell you what this is or why it might be useful….just that we do publish it. Notice that we replaced the difficult Latin "Iubilate" with the much more accessible "Jubilate")
Easier Gregorian Chant for the Choir
Many choirs will be looking for easier chant than is found in the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Triplex(?), especially at first. (Well...if you were encouraging them to look for chant at all they might be doing this, but you just told them to make slow progress and be pastoral) A good place to start is with any of the major congregational hymnals. (But…don’t look in the Parish Book of Chant…stick with the major hymnals!) The Latin chants found there are intended for congregations, but it is likely that congregations are not (yet) able to sing them. (Way to be encouraging GIA, way to be encouraging! I especially like the parenthetical “yet”.) The choir might (why not say “can”?) sing easier Latin antiphons, Latin chant hymns, or chant hymns in English. Hymns are an easy place to start because the same melody is repeated for each stanza of text. Because the melody of a strophic hymn is formulaic and not intrinsically tied to the Latin text, hymns are the one part of the Latin chant repertoire that can be sung in any language. (Well…they wouldn’t really be Latin chant repertoire then, would they? If we sing “O Come All Ye Faithful” in English, we’re not singing a Latin chant hymn simply because it was originally in Latin, are we? This is essentially trying to say that singing vernacular hymnody is a great way to fulfill the call to sing Latin chant. What absolute nonsense.)
Other easier collections for choir are Graduale Simplex and Cantus Selecti.
(We’re not going to tell you what these are either, but they are easier)
Gregorian Chant for the Choir (but not the easier stuff like above)
Much of the Latin chant repertoire was written for a trained choir.(So...my choir isn't "trained"?) Being more difficult, it was sung primarily in monasteries (not like your parish), cathedrals (not like your parish either), colleges (not a parish, so not like you either), and parishes with more extensive resources (more extensive resources than your parish, that is!) In the right circumstances (not gonna tell you what these might be, but they aren't circumstances that apply to your parish) , parish choirs can still sing some of this chant.
Graduale Romanum, Gregorian Missal for Sundays, Graduale Triplex.
(We’re not even going to tell you why we have these books listed here…but they contain some of the chant that you might be able to sing in the right circumstances at a monastery, cathedral, college or extensively resourced parish.)
>>>>>>
So….that is, in a nutshell, what GIA wants to tell you about the music for which their company is named. If you were a truly inquiring Director of Music trying to live up to the Church’s call to sing the music of the Roman liturgy, would this encourage you to do so?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Fr. Ruff on the CMAA Colloquium
Over at Pray Tell, Fr. Ruff posts a link to the newly released video documentary of the 2009 CMAA Colloquium. This is sure to raise some questions, some eyebrows and hopefully some awareness of what Sacred Music can be, even in a parish setting.
Fr. Ruff poses a series of questions for readers to consider while viewing the documentary, the first of which is this:
Why is this movement growing? Why has the CMAA colloquium expanded by leaps and bounds in the last five years? What draws young people to this?
Two comments on this...
1) I'm glad to see an acknowledgement by someone with Fr. Ruff's stature that this is not some "fringe group" any longer...this is a movement expressing a point of view that is coming to be held by a quickly growing segment of the Catholic faithful...
2) The answer to these questions can be found in the title of the documentary..."Sacred, Beautiful & Universal". This music is everything that liturgical music should be. There are certainly some legitimate criticisms possible, but they too can be addressed with the words from one of the interviews with Dr. Mahrt. He relates the story of the weekend that "the change" took place back in the 1960's. His pastor informed him that he was changing his parts to English the following week and asked Dr. Mahrt when the music would be doing the same. His reply was "As soon as I can find music that is worth replacing what we have".
To put it bluntly, any argument promoting music to replace that music that has been established historically and aesthetically as integral to the Roman liturgy has to overcome a HUGE hurdle to even be considered. It has to do what the chant does AT LEAST as well as chant, and it should do it even better if it is going to be considered a permamnent replacement. The musical experiments in liturgy of these past 40-50 years have been seeking such a music and have, up to now largely been a failure. It isn't good enough that something is...well..."good enough"...it would have to be "better" than what it seeks to replace.
And that is why the attraction to actual Sacred Music is growing, as Fr. Ruff points out, by leaps and bounds. That is why the young are coming to it in increasing numbers. There have been many comparisons made between the current direction of things and the "grass-roots" Folk-Mass movement of the early 1970's. While there may be some similarities, there is a huge difference in what is being promoted.
And that difference is on prominent display at the CMAA Colloquium.
The week after the CMAA Colloquium, only a few short miles away at the airport convention center was the NPM Convention. This afforded the opportunity for the contrast to be on full display. While there were certainly some great moments at the NPM Convention, a neutral observer would be hard pressed to find much common between these two sides of the coin as it were. I'm not sure that a neutral observer would even be able to associate these two events with the same faith. And that is a shame.
Fr. Ruff poses a series of questions for readers to consider while viewing the documentary, the first of which is this:
Why is this movement growing? Why has the CMAA colloquium expanded by leaps and bounds in the last five years? What draws young people to this?
Two comments on this...
1) I'm glad to see an acknowledgement by someone with Fr. Ruff's stature that this is not some "fringe group" any longer...this is a movement expressing a point of view that is coming to be held by a quickly growing segment of the Catholic faithful...
2) The answer to these questions can be found in the title of the documentary..."Sacred, Beautiful & Universal". This music is everything that liturgical music should be. There are certainly some legitimate criticisms possible, but they too can be addressed with the words from one of the interviews with Dr. Mahrt. He relates the story of the weekend that "the change" took place back in the 1960's. His pastor informed him that he was changing his parts to English the following week and asked Dr. Mahrt when the music would be doing the same. His reply was "As soon as I can find music that is worth replacing what we have".
To put it bluntly, any argument promoting music to replace that music that has been established historically and aesthetically as integral to the Roman liturgy has to overcome a HUGE hurdle to even be considered. It has to do what the chant does AT LEAST as well as chant, and it should do it even better if it is going to be considered a permamnent replacement. The musical experiments in liturgy of these past 40-50 years have been seeking such a music and have, up to now largely been a failure. It isn't good enough that something is...well..."good enough"...it would have to be "better" than what it seeks to replace.
And that is why the attraction to actual Sacred Music is growing, as Fr. Ruff points out, by leaps and bounds. That is why the young are coming to it in increasing numbers. There have been many comparisons made between the current direction of things and the "grass-roots" Folk-Mass movement of the early 1970's. While there may be some similarities, there is a huge difference in what is being promoted.
And that difference is on prominent display at the CMAA Colloquium.
The week after the CMAA Colloquium, only a few short miles away at the airport convention center was the NPM Convention. This afforded the opportunity for the contrast to be on full display. While there were certainly some great moments at the NPM Convention, a neutral observer would be hard pressed to find much common between these two sides of the coin as it were. I'm not sure that a neutral observer would even be able to associate these two events with the same faith. And that is a shame.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Was I Right, or Was I Right?
Just a week or two ago, I wrote a commentary on Msgr. Guido Marini's address to Priests about the reform of the reform initiatives currently gaining momentum. In the course of my comments I made another observation:
And yet, the reactions to Msgr. Marini's address and to Pope Benedict's initiatives all too often appeal to the well-worn cliche: "Let's not turn back the clock".
And so what do we find from a "world-renowned expert in liturgical inculturation" this week?
"World-renowned expert in liturgical inculturation, Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, challenged recent announcements on liturgical reform decrying their “absence of a historical and cultural approach to the liturgy, or, in a word, the inability to fuse together the two basic concepts of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal, namely sound tradition and legitimate progress.” He noted that recent statements coming from no less than the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, which called for a reform of Vatican II’s reform were part of an agenda to turn the clock back 50 years, that “seems to conveniently forget that since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times, acknowledging the changes in social and religious culture, and adopting new pastoral strategies.”
Was I right, or was I right? Come on guys, at least come up with a new well-worn cliche!
And yet, the reactions to Msgr. Marini's address and to Pope Benedict's initiatives all too often appeal to the well-worn cliche: "Let's not turn back the clock".
And so what do we find from a "world-renowned expert in liturgical inculturation" this week?
"World-renowned expert in liturgical inculturation, Fr. Anscar Chupungco OSB, challenged recent announcements on liturgical reform decrying their “absence of a historical and cultural approach to the liturgy, or, in a word, the inability to fuse together the two basic concepts of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal, namely sound tradition and legitimate progress.” He noted that recent statements coming from no less than the papal master of ceremonies, Msgr. Guido Marini, which called for a reform of Vatican II’s reform were part of an agenda to turn the clock back 50 years, that “seems to conveniently forget that since Vatican II, the Church has been marching with the times, acknowledging the changes in social and religious culture, and adopting new pastoral strategies.”
Was I right, or was I right? Come on guys, at least come up with a new well-worn cliche!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
