The Novus Ordo Missae

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='12 December 2009 - 11:18 PM' timestamp='1260677918' post='2019517']
I think the main problem with the Novus Ordo is the excessive options that the priest can pick from.
[/quote]

I would say it is one issue that needs to be addressed. Of all the options permitted in the OF, I think the option of picking a Eucharistic prayer other than the Roman Canon is the most undesirable. This is especially so since none of the Eucharistic prayers besides the Canon are more than 50 years old.*

Though if I had to say what the over-all least beneficial change to the Mass was, it would doubtless be Communion in the hand.** To quote an article on the subject, "No, the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist was never changed. But psychologically it never meant the same."

*Yes, I realize that Euharistic prayers II and III were "based" on Eucharistic prayers found in documents from the first millennium; however, those who say this have a very loose definition of "based".

**Yes, I realize that Communion in the Hand is not a universal norm; it is a local indult. I also realize that the OF can be celebrated without anyone receiving in the hand. That said, it is something that is certainly widespread today, being even illicitly imposed on Communicants after the H1N1 epidemic.

Edited December 13, 2009 by Resurrexi

[jeffpugh]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 01:55 PM' timestamp='1260644111' post='2019228']
I think the Roman Rite should go back to using the older missal alone, but allow for the celebration of the liturgy in either Latin or the vernacular.
[/quote]
I voted No, but I've actually agreed with this at one point. I don't like these sort of topics just because it's a "what if..." statement. It is done, this mass is incarnated, it cannot be undone. I think the topic would do better to focus on the present/future instead of an imaginary past. Anywho, to reiterate, I thought about the benefits of the Usus Antiquitor with some vernacular. On the other hand, the universal sacral Latin is indeed something to hold on to.

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 01:59 PM' timestamp='1260644355' post='2019232']
I agree with the first part of that, but but I disagree with the second part. This is mainly because the chants of the Graduale are in Latin.
[/quote]
Indeed. I think this would be the hardest part of allowing vernacular too. There are some things though that translate seemlessly to English such as antiphonal singing (though I'd probably prefer the antiphon to be in Latin sing that the composition of the chant was fitted to that text) while the corresponding pattern for the psalms would easily fit into the modal patterns. Now to be clear, I'm also including the Divine Office in this discussion. Is that a fair addition?

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 02:00 PM' timestamp='1260644458' post='2019233']
The chants can be adapted to the various languages. The Anglican Communion has many theological problems, but the English chant it uses is quite beautiful.
[/quote]
[quote name='Apotheoun' date='12 December 2009 - 08:44 PM' timestamp='1260668698' post='2019451']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_ASr4gEyP4[/media]
[/quote]


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1260671049' post='2019467']
We'll have to ask SMM and Missionseeker how it compares with the original in Latin.
[/quote]
This is indeed nice, but I would say there are a few things lost in the "translation" of the music to the text. By the way, this chant is not a complete adaption it seems because there are a few notes missing here and there in order to fit the English. I'd almost call it a variation or composition based on the Latin. I believe that is encouraged, especially for the sake of the Ordinary Form. To further clarify my analysis without the ability to point out the differences, there are rhythmical indications that are meant for the Latin, but not the English. That further points to the need to "re-compose" for the ordinary. And it doesn't help that a more "casual" English is being employed in worship. I believe it it meet and just that we should give The Almighty Creator due distinction in speech in liturgical worship.

I guess I should site my source for the offertory: It would be found on page 126 in the 1961 Graduale Romanum. You can refer to it in PDF form with that page number.

P.S. I would have preferred that the English offertory was in square notes, not stemless oblong neums that we employ for "modern" music. I find it deprives the poetry of the pen, that is, the artfulness of the shape of the neums on the 4 lined staff. And a lot of the readable subtleties are lost.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='12 December 2009 - 10:33 PM' timestamp='1260678802' post='2019523']
I voted No, but I've actually agreed with this at one point. I don't like these sort of topics just because it's a "what if..." statement. It is done, this mass is incarnated, it cannot be undone. I think the topic would do better to focus on the present/future instead of an imaginary past.
[/quote]

We definitely need to look to the future, but I don't think this has to exclude ignoring a revision of the ordinary rite. Benedict has mentioned it (as quoted above). Yes its here now, and yes it is just as valid as any other form, but I think to ignore what has happened since its introduction is not good. Mass forms change, usually for the better. I don't really see it as problematic to consider what could be done to fix the problems that the Church has seen in the last half-century.

[missionseeker]

I voted no. I tend to agree with the one poster that this a pointless debate. I tend to choose to go to the EF rather than the OF. I do not think the OF is less right or less beautiful. I mean... God comes down to us at either one. And.. how can we ask if we should have promulgated the OF when what was promulgated in so many cases strays so very far from what the Vatican II docs actually say?


[quote name='Resurrexi' date='12 December 2009 - 09:24 PM' timestamp='1260671049' post='2019467']
We'll have to ask SMM and Missionseeker how it compares with the original in Latin.
[/quote]


It doesn't. Not at all. It's very nice. But it's not chant. It's really one phrase it seems, repeated. And it's English. English i actually the worst language for adapting chant. This is because we have a huge store of one syllable words as opposed to Latin or other Romantic languages that have spondees and dactyls.

Making English fit just doesn't usually work.

[jeffpugh]

Here is the chant from the graduale. For all of you on PM to further this discussion.

[OraProMe]

Can someone explain the kyriale and graduale to me? Also I'm aware the ordinary of the Mass can be chanted but is is there anything to distinguish the prayers such as the Sanctus, Agnus dei etc. from the other spoken parts of the Mass that do not change either? The few NO's I attend that use chant generally chant the whole thing (the choic joins in for the Sanctus etc.) and in the EF the choir sings over the priest so it's hard to keep up.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='12 December 2009 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1260678802' post='2019523']
Indeed. I think this would be the hardest part of allowing vernacular too. There are some things though that translate seemlessly to English such as antiphonal singing (though I'd probably prefer the antiphon to be in Latin sing that the composition of the chant was fitted to that text) while the corresponding pattern for the psalms would easily fit into the modal patterns.
[/quote]
I just don't buy what you are selling. The Byzantine Churches have translated their liturgies into various language for more than a 1,000 years. That is part of what makes for the incarnating of the Gospel.

P.S. - Of course an adaptation from one language to another will not result in something identical, either musically or - obviously - linguistically.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' date='12 December 2009 - 09:33 PM' timestamp='1260678802' post='2019523']
. . . the universal sacral Latin is indeed something to hold on to.[/quote]
The Latin language has never been "universal" in liturgy, while historically speaking the Greek language could make that claim more strongly. The Roman Church itself only started using Latin in its liturgy in the 4th century.

[OraProMe]

I think it's interesting that

- The Traditional Mass is prayed in Latin, Greek and Hebrew
- In Catholic theology the Mass is the renewal of Calvary
- The three languages proclaiming Jesus as King of the Jews on the cross were Latin, Hebrew and Greek.

[Apotheoun]

The following languages, and this list is not meant to be exhaustive, have been used for liturgy by the ancient Churches:

Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Armenian, Ge'ez, Coptic, and Syriac

Edited December 13, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 03:25 AM' timestamp='1260692714' post='2019598']
The Latin language has never been "universal" in liturgy, while historically speaking the Greek language could make that claim more strongly. The Roman Church itself only started using Latin in its liturgy in the 4th century.
[/quote]

The Latin language has been universal in the Western Church.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='OraProMe' date='13 December 2009 - 01:03 AM' timestamp='1260684204' post='2019566']
Can someone explain the kyriale and graduale to me? Also I'm aware the ordinary of the Mass can be chanted but is is there anything to distinguish the prayers such as the Sanctus, Agnus dei etc. from the other spoken parts of the Mass that do not change either? The few NO's I attend that use chant generally chant the whole thing (the choic joins in for the Sanctus etc.) and in the EF the choir sings over the priest so it's hard to keep up.
[/quote]

The Kyriale has the Ordinary chants sung by the choir and the Graudale has the proper chants sung by the choir. The choir singing the Sanctus over the Canon actually seems to be more ancient than the priest waiting until the Sanctus is finished to start the Canon. The Byzantine Rite, for example, continues that practice.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 08:49 AM' timestamp='1260719367' post='2019641']
The Latin language has been universal in the Western Church.
[/quote]
But that has not always been the case.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='13 December 2009 - 11:30 AM' timestamp='1260721809' post='2019654']
But that has not always been the case.
[/quote]

It has been the case for more than 1500 years.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='13 December 2009 - 09:36 AM' timestamp='1260722209' post='2019659']
It has been the case for more than 1500 years.
[/quote]
Thanks for agreeing with me.