Textual Changes to the Roman Missal coming First Sunday of Advent - Page 3

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

When you say "Protestant" music, what exactly are you referring to?  I don't think that the general gathering music (i.e., processional, recessional, offeratory, Communion) is affected ... as far as I know, these can still be music from a hymnal, a broader range songbook like Breaking Bread, or contemporary worship music.

Yes, this is my question.  Maybe I misunderstood this quote:

Originally Posted by moonshoes 

And may I just say thank goodness they will have to take out the Protestant "music" and maybe do something Catholic for a change.

Moonshoes, if you're still following, I would appreciate some clarification on this.  I am a church musician and want to understand better what is being asked of us but hadn't heard of anything to this effect.  I thought that all music had to be evaluated and approved already and that music written by Protestants (from Bach through contemporary Protestant composers) could potentially be approved if it did not contain anything contrary to Catholic teachings.  ...or are you referring to style?  Have there been changes in the styles of music allowed?
 

[Shantimama]

I composed the setting with the conviction that the primary instrument is the voice of the assembly. Therefore, it may be accompanied by organ, piano or guitar alone—or without any accompaniment at all.

The music given to our parish by the bishop include a part for flute or oboe to accompany guitar, piano or organ.

[Trigger]

Originally Posted by JMJ 

Yes, this is my question.  Maybe I misunderstood this quote:

Moonshoes, if you're still following, I would appreciate some clarification on this.  I am a church musician and want to understand better what is being asked of us but hadn't heard of anything to this effect.  I thought that all music had to be evaluated and approved already and that music written by Protestants (from Bach through contemporary Protestant composers) could potentially be approved if it did not contain anything contrary to Catholic teachings.  ...or are you referring to style?  Have there been changes in the styles of music allowed?
 

The short answer is - No, there haven't.   I'm also not certain what moonshoes means when she makes the statement

Quote:

thank goodness they will have to take out the Protestant "music"

Because - aside from being inflammatory, derogatory, and elitist - it simply isn't true.  While there will be a challenge to set the syntax of some of new liturgical texts to music, overall the style of the music is still open to interpretation according to what we learned in the workshops.

And I'm still  over her "Catholic" vs. "Protestant" music POV - but apparently moonshoes has no interest in defending and debating her position on these topics, if people are going to disagree with her or question her opinions.

[Maiasaura]

Originally Posted by BMG580 We need some new people considering a conversion to a new religion - that always seems to get things hopping around here!   

I guess that might be me. I've been lurking and trying to learn. I'm not sure I'm interested in conversion-- well, not fully, anyway-- but I'm open to learning, a lot. But wouldn't that be a topic for a different board than what they are doing to change the services?

Lucky for me, I won't have to learn anything new, with the Missal-- I don't know the old one It's ALL new to me.

[JMJ]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

The short answer is - No, there haven't.   I'm also not certain what moonshoes means when she makes the statement

Because - aside from being inflammatory, derogatory, and elitist - it simply isn't true.  While there will be a challenge to set the syntax of some of new liturgical texts to music, overall the style of the music is still open to interpretation according to what we learned in the workshops.

And I'm still  over her "Catholic" vs. "Protestant" music POV - but apparently moonshoes has no interest in defending and debating her position on these topics, if people are going to disagree with her or question her opinions.

Thank you for doing your best to answer my questions, Trigger.  You've provided a great amount of helpful information.  Unfortunately, since you have no better idea than I have of what was meant by these comments, I would be careful about declaring them outright false until I have a better idea of what moonshoes meant.  As a Traditional-leaning Catholic myself, I have a great amount of respect for moonshoes, and I'm very interested in whatever information she might have, because like you, Trigger, I have not come across anything like that.  Perhaps this is something being emphasized in her own parish, or she has come across something that we have not?  Moonshoes, if you are still following the thread, I would love more clarification.

[Trigger]

Fair enough ... perhaps moonshoes would be kind enough to PM you if she has pertinent info on the subject.

Hoping you would share any info that would be helpful, though!

[JMJ]

The seminarian currently assigned to our parish just posted this on facebook: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/09/new-and-improved-girm.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewLiturgicalMovement+%28The+New+Liturgical+Movement%29&utm_content=FaceBook

After some googling, it appears to be true:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/06/what-does-girm-160-for-the-usa-really-say/

http://causafinitaest.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-translation-of-girm-another-major.html

Apparently, we ARE getting a newly translated (or in some cases modified) GIRM as well.  In my preliminary search, I've found stuff on music and kneeling at Communion.  Please let me know if any of you find anything else.

[Trigger]

Something I hadn't found in my previous search on the USCCB site:

http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/roman-missal/general-instruction-of-the-roman-missal/girm-foreword.cfm 

The final text of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, for use in the Dioceses of the United States and approved in 2010, includes a new translation of the GIRM. The 2003 text was intended as a provisional translation, and in subsequent years other English-language Conferences of Bishops issued their own translations of the GIRM.  

367. In choosing the chants between the readings, as well as the chants at the Entrance, at the Offertory, and at Communion, the norms laid down in their proper places are to be observed (cf. nos. 40-41, 47-48, 61-64, 74, 86-88). 

However, a poster on your first link makes a vaid point:

The rubric has not changed at all. I see no further restriction on choice of music here in any case. The Church changed nothing on this point in the Latin, and the word cantus can be chant or song. Whatever was allowed in 1997 is allowed now.  

I honestly do not see the Mass becoming a chant-only celebration across the board.  I am certain it won't happen in my Diocese - in our parish we're already practicing a revised Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, etc. and they are all in definite song form.  Our parish is also getting new hymnals in preparation for the RRM, so ....

I think that they are simply translating from Latin (cantus) in the GIRM, and using "chant" to mean "song" or "chant".

[JMJ]

I do see that the dominant interpretation is that nothing besides the text has changed, and it is a very good point that out word chant comes from a root word meaning "to sing," and that is exactly what is being done, but the word "chant" in English has very specific connotations.  It seems strange that it would be translated as such if it was not intended to be chant.

Playing devil's advocate, trying to keep an open mind, could it be the same reason the word "chalice" will now be used in the Eucharistic Prayer?  To use older, more specifically Catholic terms for the same thing?

Regardless, I wish I would see more proliferation of great musical settings of the antiphons that are set for the day.  As a church musician, that would make selection of music so much easier and would fit into the rest of Mass so nicely.

Sometimes, I think we need a definitive interpretation of this new definitive interpretation.  I've been traveling a lot lately, and as much as this is supposed to unite us, I'm seeing the teaching on it varying widely from place to place.

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by Trigger 

The short answer is - No, there haven't.   I'm also not certain what moonshoes means when she makes the statement

Because - aside from being inflammatory, derogatory, and elitist - it simply isn't true.  While there will be a challenge to set the syntax of some of new liturgical texts to music, overall the style of the music is still open to interpretation according to what we learned in the workshops.

And I'm still  over her "Catholic" vs. "Protestant" music POV - but apparently moonshoes has no interest in defending and debating her position on these topics, if people are going to disagree with her or question her opinions.

I'm not sure how you interpret this as being inflammatory, derogatory and elitist. My personal opinion is that much of the current music being played in many parishes is not music appropriate for the mass. The mass, in my personal opinion, is meant to be reverent and focused on Christ. It is the most sacred act of worship any person could ever participate in. By our presence, we assist at Holy Mass. I love the mass as making present again Christ's love for us, and a continuation of His last supper with His apostles.

I do not personally see Holy Mass as an act of worship that is enhanced by clapping, Protestant hymns and general if-it-feels-good-do-it practices. I have personally observed  that at churches where these things are not just tolerated, but encouraged, people have no respect for what they are being given. Flip-flops, tanktops, shorts, chatting and laughing during mass, barely acknowledging the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, putting the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Lord in their hands and skipping out the back door of the Church....all are reflective of the lack of Catechism and knowledge of the truth of Holy Mother Church.

It is my hope and belief that the liturgical abuses will begin to begin to be addressed and lessened by the changes in the Roman Missal and changes coming in the music. I personally feel it is obvious from the bishops that the music is expected to change, but again, there are those that will insist that is not true.

 

For what it's worth, I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. I am well aware that my point of view is annoying to some, agreeable to others. That's life. I would say that I don't feel being traditional is elitist. But that's not applicable to the thread.

Edited by moonshoes - 10/3/11 at 9:53am

[mt_gooseberry]

Not to hijack the thread, but I have an ecumenical question.  My dad, who is Lutheran (ELCA) mentioned that they would be going with the new translation for their liturgy (which currently is pretty much the same as the Catholic liturgy) this Advent as well.  I was just wondering, to what extent do Lutherans (or other Protestant denominations) follow what the Vatican does? 

[Maiasaura]

Originally Posted by moonshoes I have personally observed  that at churches where these things are not just tolerated, but encouraged, people have no respect for what they are being given. Flip-flops, tanktops, shorts, chatting and laughing during mass, barely akknowledging the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, putting the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of our Blessed Lord in their hands and skipping out the back door of the Church....all are reflective of the lack of Catechism and knowledge of the truth of Holy Mother Church.

I am mostly just a lurker here, because I'm just beginning to learn about Catholicism, but I have to say, I agree with you wholeheartedly-- unfortunately, this isn't just in churches (of all kinds)-- it's across the board. I'm generally very liberal, including in my politics, but I do think it's a dang shame how our country has gone to hell as regards respect. People just don't care anymore how their behavior affects other people, or the public. It's pathetic, IMO. Very sad.

[moonshoes]

Originally Posted by JMJ 

The seminarian currently assigned to our parish just posted this on facebook: http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/09/new-and-improved-girm.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheNewLiturgicalMovement+%28The+New+Liturgical+Movement%29&utm_content=FaceBook

After some googling, it appears to be true:

http://wdtprs.com/blog/2011/06/what-does-girm-160-for-the-usa-really-say/

http://causafinitaest.blogspot.com/2011/07/new-translation-of-girm-another-major.html

Apparently, we ARE getting a newly translated (or in some cases modified) GIRM as well.  In my preliminary search, I've found stuff on music and kneeling at Communion.  Please let me know if any of you find anything else.

thank you for the references.

[Trigger]

Sadly, disrespect for worship in general occurs in many churches, and crosses denominations.  I want to smack the parents that allow their daughters to celebrate their Confirmation in a dress cut up to here and down to there, but some people are only there for the ceremonial "rite of passage" and it seems that they just don't always consider propriety.

Flip-flops, tank tops, and yapping during Mass are an entirely different matter of disrespect, however.  I still do not consider clapping and singing joyfully or with great passion disrespectful during Mass.  It is, after all, a celebration.  There are places within the Mass where the music should be reverent, and seasons/Holy Days where it should be solemn; but I believe that, in general, the Mass should be celebrated with joy and thanksgiving.  The RRM/revised GIRM will not change that - perhaps individual pastors will implement new "norms" (such as in the diocese of Phoenix  recently); but musically, it isn't likely that things will change across the board.  (I make this statement based upon the music that we have been practicing specifically in preparation for the introduction of the RRM next month.)

 

Originally Posted by mt_gooseberry 

Not to hijack the thread, but I have an ecumenical question.  My dad, who is Lutheran (ELCA) mentioned that they would be going with the new translation for their liturgy (which currently is pretty much the same as the Catholic liturgy) this Advent as well.  I was just wondering, to what extent do Lutherans (or other Protestant denominations) follow what the Vatican does? 

It isn't necessarily that Lutherans "follow what the Vatican does" - rather, their theology (as well as that of Anglicans and Orthodox) is closest to Roman Catholic theology than other denoms.  Currently, most ecumenical dialogue occurs between the RC church and these three groups.

[JMJ]

moonshoes, I've seen it both ways.  I've seen Steubenville, etc youth retreats that seem to be both very energetic and very focused on orthodox Catholic teaching and reverence for the Eucharist.  I'm also fine with people disagreeing with me, but I feel that they are an excellent example of Pope John Paul II's call to the New Evangelization, using new technology and new methods of meeting our culture where they are and bringing them closer to Christ.  It's not just about feelings.  It is music that helps certain people to realize and appreciate the significance of what they are given by their Catholic faith.

Contemporary music, including some music that is used in both Catholic and Protestant communities, is also sometimes helpful for people who are in the process of converting.  It makes the Mass seem less foreign for those who are attracted to our beliefs.  At the same time, I do see that for some people, the contemporary music can be a barrier to reverence or a distraction from the significance of the Mass, more like a party than a sacrifice.  I think it depends on how it's done and how the people are responding inwardly to the style of worship.  I know from experience that you can't judge that a person is particularly holy just because they are acting very reverently or that they are not particularly devout or reverent just because they look like they're just having a good time.

As far as clothes go, I agree that it important to dress modestly and reverently for Mass, but I think it is more important for people to be there period.  Today, for example, I finished up another activity with just enough time to run to daily Mass, and I was wearing jeans and flip-flops, and you can bet I went to Mass in what I was wearing.  Normally, I would try to be a little more formal, even for daily Mass, but if I suddenly get the opportunity to make it there at all, I think going to Mass is more important than worrying about what I'm wearing.  There are certain things that I think there's no place for (immodest clothing, chewing gum, eating, chattering, etc) because they are just not respectful.

At the same time, I can see what you are talking about with contemporary music sometimes being accompanied by liturgical abuses and beliefs that are contrary to the Magisterium.  I see it at my own parish.  Thankfully, our clergy is using the opportunity of this new translation to fix many of these liturgical abuses.

I haven't heard anything from any of the parishes I have visited lately about changes to the style of music or introduction of musical settings of the antiphons.  It just doesn't seem to be on the radar of anybody I have talked to, and people who I have brought it up with at my parish have gotten defensive and told me that I'm wrong, that we're not being encouraged to make any changes except that we'll say the antiphons after whatever contemporary song we do.  The educational materials sent out by my parish didn't even go that far.  They claimed that there will be no changes to the music besides the retranslations of the Ordinary of the Mass.  All I've heard of it has been online, so it's hard to know what we are actually being asked to do, and I don't expect to see many changes in the music from what people are already doing.

mt_gooseberry, Protestant congregations are not bound by whatever the Vatican requires (Though, make note that these changes are just to the English translation of the Mass.  Other languages are not being affected by this change, though I have heard mention that they are considering retranslating the Spanish as well, sometime far in the future.), but Catholics and Protestants do not live in a vacuum.  They are more affected by each other's decisions than most people realize.  Many people who are against Vatican II will tell you all about the Protestant-based prayers inserted into the Mass after Vatican II, and the readings specified for each Sunday are very similar in the Catholic Church, and Lutheran and Episcopalian congregations.  One denomination is not required to accept the changes in liturgy made by another denomination, but some denominations have kept their liturgy very close to the Catholic liturgy despite being separated for centuries.  It is no coincidence that my husband's family accidentally went to an Anglican service some years back and didn't realize it until far into the service.

[JMJ]

In thinking more, I did want to add that any of us can have any opinions we want on what kind of music would be most appropriate from a pastoral or reverent viewpoint, but it's not our decision.  The Church gives guidelines on music, and it is up to us as the faithful to obediently accept those guidelines, and I would not be too critical of those who choose to do anything that falls within the acceptable boundaries.  I just wish the boundaries were more clear sometimes.

[LessTraveledBy]

Originally Posted by chfriend 

I looks like an attempt to bring the east and west closer together in translations.

How about just bringing the west together or, really, part of the west back to the west. It makes no sense to see some huge ecumenical thing in this: The fact is that the English translation is the one being talked about, not the liturgy itself. None of the other many languages I have used at Mass have had these problems. I for one am happy that the English speakers are being brought back to saying what the rest of the Latin rite says.

[Trigger]

http://www.associationofcatholicpriests.ie/2011/10/the-new-missal-how-is-it-going-for-you-our-members/

2. The Church is not my mother. The Church is the People of God, therefore, the Church is you and me. It is not some distant administrative body telling me what to do. That is the Vatican, not the Church.

3. I am not a child. Why does the hierarchy insist on treating me like one? I have a brain and an intellect of my own. Telling me that my considered disagreement will vanish like dewdrops in the sun under the gentle application of formation in the faith is arrogance in the extreme. Arrogance, it is true, that we have come to expect, but arrogance just the same.

Maybe this reflects some of the anger, or at least ridicule that is out there regarding the level of interaction and consultation employed in the introduction of the new translation:

http://a6.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/300580_10150370548163490_506788489_8026357_277581220_n.jpg

Should help with the dying to self-will.

[JMJ]

Hmmm.... I've never heard the Church as Mother analogy rejected before, and Christ is very clear that we must become like little children to enter the Kingdom of God.  Obedience (not blind obedience, but the choice to subvert our own will to another) is a virtue that seems to be lost.

[Trigger]

Depends. Some of us consider obedience to Christ, not the Vatican/magesterium, to be the real virtue.  It has become increasingly more difficult to agree with, much less be "obedient" to, an institution that is riddled with problems of their own making.

"Mother Church" is not Scriptural theology, as far as I know.  We, the collective Body of Christ on earth, are the Church.