A really strange irony in Catholic liturgical life runs as follows. During and following the Second Vatican Council, there was a brief period of transition from old to new, a time when new resources were pouring out that were leading us out of tradition and toward a new conception of liturgy. These resources included, in the first instance, editions of the Roman Missal that used the vernacular. There were editions of English plainchant coming out. There were books of seasonal propers (I’ve never really understood what this phrase could mean), most famously the Graduale Simplex.
In many ways, these resources were both good and bad. The traditionalists of the time were right to be wary of what was happening. The sudden appearance of the vernacular in 1965 was a reversal of a tradition of more than a millennium. The pace at which the holy tongue was being abandoned was very scary and threatened to unleash unknown confusions.
For one thing, there is a grave danger that something unknown would be lost in a poorly-thought-out transition from a fixed universal language to the disunity that comes with dozens of different languages in which every word is subject to a different interpretation. There was the danger that doctrinal and liturgical unity, carefully fostered through the ages, would suddenly disintegrate.
Something that very few Bishops considered that the musicians did understand concerned the fate of the music of the Roman Rite. The tunes of the ordinary settings of the Mass, which had stabilized for many hundreds of years, were very much tied to the Latin language. This is true with all music, not just ritual music. Try singing Happy Birthday to the English-language tune but substitute a German translation. You have to add and take away notes, and even then the emphasis is all wrong. It is a bad fit. At the very least, there are some puzzles to solve and much to be lost.
For some reason, non-musicians have a hard time getting this point. Many Bishops and reformers just figured that this was no big deal. Just put the English words in, said Annibale Bugnini, or just write new music. As the architect of the reform, his autobiography reveals that he could not figure out what the musicians were so hysterical about. He just didn’t get it.
He never understood that to change the language of ritual music threatens the entire body of work. This is true enough with the ordinary of the Mass (which the 1965 Missal in the U.S. put into English) but especially true of the propers of the Mass. The body of work known as the propers are the very foundation of development of music (in the West) for 1000 years. They are precious works of art, each one of them. Changing the language here is an act of artistic violence, akin to taking a wrecker ball to all the cathedrals of Europe. But when musicians made these points, the liturgists looked at them like they were fanatics who didn’t get the needs of changing times.
Change happened anyway. There were attempts to come up with English translations of the Mass and English propers of the Mass, along with Psalms. How we look at these depends on your point of view. From one perspective, these attempts were exceedingly dangerous to tradition. On the other hand, they had merit in that they were earnest attempts to comply with the vernacular trends without totally throwing out tradition, saving perhaps the baby even if the bath water was being thrown out.
From this second point of view, these resources were conservatizing devices. They attempted to reconcile new reality with what had come before. To be sure, this was a time of great confusion and the arguments were intense and led to wicked personal splits and acrimony.
These transitional materials, appearing between 1963 and about 1968, were very short lived. Many of them are now online, made available by Musicasacra.com and currently being used by many parishes that are working their way back to tradition.
How can this be? Well, by the late 1960s, it had become clear that all kinds of hell had been unleashed. Experimental Masses were taking place all over the country that involved blues, rock, phony folk, and plain old goofy music that bore absolutely no marks of the sacred. By they time that history rolled around to settling on the music of the St. Louis Jesuits, many people were relieved that at least it was religious music and somewhat calm compared to the upheaval they had just gone through.
But in some ways, other sectors were getting worse. There was also the problem of the new translation of 1969/70, which had very little of the dignity of the English we saw in the 1965 edition. The new translation seem to reinforce the impression that the Roman Rite would travel very far from what it had been. An ethos in the liturgical world developed that essentially praised anything new while regarding anything old as regrettable and marked for destruction in time.
So the four-hymn model of music, initiated in the preconcilar low Mass, and then receiving reinformcement from the experimental days of the late 1960s, became the norm, and here is where we have been stuck for all these decades.
With the dawning of a new consciousness concerning the propers of Mass, and the rise of new interesting in what we’ve left being (primarily the very Gregorian chant at the Second Vatican Council gave primary place at Mass), many people have discovered the resources of the early and mid 1960s, and find them to be very valuable for helping us move forward out of the current rut and into a ritual that is artistically and theologically worthy of its aims.
This means that vernacular chant is being rediscovered. The seasonal propers of the Graduale Simplex are being rediscovered. The nobler and dignified English of the 1965 Missal is being rediscovered. And each of them are being implemented in our parishes. The irony is that insted of leading us away from tradition – which might have been their historical function – they are leading us back to tradition. It’s like a car that has driven so far from its path that the only way out is to retrace the path from whence it came.
I’ve written several times that 2011 feels a lot like what I imagine 1965 felt like: a time of transition and change. And the same old factions are at it again, arguing about norms and practical issues. But haven’t we learned from the intervening years? The path forward as mapped out in the early 1970s was a path away from where we need to be. It is path to nowhere.
Cardinal Newman had a conception of the Roman Church has always developing and always moving, and, in this respect, it is different from other faith traditions. This presents both dangers and opportunities. For us today, this is a great opportunity to get back on the right path, rediscover what we left aside, and move forward to embrace truly timeless and universal forms of our beloved ritual.
"There was also the problem of the new translation of 1969/70, which had very little of the dignity of the English we saw in the 1965 edition."
1965
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace to men of good will.
We praise you; we bless you; we worship you; we glorify you;
we give you thanks for your great glory.
Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty.
Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son;
Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father:
you, who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us;
you, who take away the sins of the world, receive our prayer;
you, who sit at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For you alone are holy; you alone are Lord; you alone, O Jesus Christ, are most high;
with the Holy Spirit, in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
1970
Glory to God in the highest, and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father:
we worship you, we give you thanks, we praise you for your glory.
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God:
you take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us;
you are seated at the right hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One; you alone are the Lord;
you alone are the Most High, Jesus Christ,
with the Holy Spirit in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
1965
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts,
heaven and earth are filled with your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
1970
Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of power and might,
heaven and earth are full of your glory.
Hosanna in the highest.
Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.
Hosanna in the highest.
1965
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us (2).
Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.
1970
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us (2).
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world, grant us peace.
Could you show us the specific places where 1970 departs in dignity from 1965? Thank you.
Just in these examples, the Gloria and the Sanctus are correctly translated in 1965 but not in 1970. But there is more to a Missal than the ordinary parts for the people. The translations throughout the 1965 are far better than 1970. Actually, I don't think my claim is controversial at all.
I'm thinking however that we do need a 1965 online.
Jeffrey,
I understand the attraction and inclination towards de-constructing and re-constructing anecdotal, factual, statistical, philosophical and other "histories" in order to concretize them into an economy or model by which we learn lessons which we, then, hope not to repeat.
From hence comes your declaration I’ve written several times that 2011 feels a lot like what I imagine 1965 felt like: a time of transition and change. And the same old factions are at it again, arguing about norms and practical issues. But haven’t we learned from the intervening years? The path forward as mapped out in the early 1970s was a path away from where we need to be. It is path to nowhere.
As you know, I lived (as did many who frequent our haunts) and worked through the evolutions from those late sixties to the present at the parish and cathedral levels, and it's very difficult to concur with such cut and dried analysis and conclusions. Ken Canedo's recollection doesn't necessarily align with mine, nor would Richard Proulx's with Omer Westendorf's or Paul Salamunovich's. That's barely a peek or snapshot, at best, of all that was going on in the USA, much less all of Catholic Christendom.
If we wish not to again go "nowhere" and choose the right path, then we might do well to REALLY listen to Dr. Mahrt, Dr. Schaefer and the others who call the question of why need we anything but the existing Graduale Romanum for the EF and the Gregorian Missal for the OF?
But underlying that, what we all know that disquiets us still is that the cohesion that must lead us on the right path is an idealogical unity among bishops everywhere. I'm not venturing any further upon that.
In the meantime, consider that it may have to suffice that we still have diverse tributaries that may widen as time passes that are moving towards the one great river. Those streams are the SEP, CCW, St. Louis Project, BFW/Psallite, Richard Rice's efforts, TAG, etc. and et al.
But as was said by both Drs. S and M at NOLA, "who says there will be an endgame?"
The "endgame" we strive for is coined with precision: that which is clearly "sacred, beautiful and universal." And any day that a bishop consults with his musicians as to how that is best manifested in his diocese will be a day for rejoicing.
Anonymous, please say the Gloria out loud, first the 1965 translation and then the 1970. It's pretty obvious when you do that that, the 1965 translation is more lyrical, flowing and satisfying. The 1970 is clumsy and contrived.
This account by JT brought back a lot of bad memories of the alleged "reform." I'm just glad I've lived long enough that there exist today young priests, musicians, and liturgists, who are providing the Faithful with the opportunity to once again experience a Liturgy which is a foretaste of Heaven, rather than a re-enactment of the day to day banalities we experience during the week on Sunday. Deo Gratias!
I don't recognize Anon's 1965 Gloria; I can only assume that the US were using a different translation. In the UK we had: "Glory be to God on high, and on earth peace to men who are God's friends. We praise Thee, We bless Thee etc" and "Thou who takest away …"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think the current ICET text was around in 1970. I first came across it in the Anglican Series III in 1971. The bishops authorized its use in England and Wales in 1976, although the older version could still be used if the Gloria was sung.
By 1965, do you mean 1966? The imprimatur was granted in February of 1966, and the permission (mandate, actually) to use this "English-Latin Sacramentary" (to indicate that it was a supplement to be used alongside the 1964 Roman Missal, which you still needed for everything but the Collect, Over the Gifts, and Postcommunion orations, notably for the Readings) was effective on the First Sunday of Lent 1966. We old guys know these things, young Mr. Tucker!
I agree with you that we need such a resource online, but may I respectfully but urgently recommend that it NOT be that USA publication? Please note that the 1966 USA English orations "Sacramentary" was simply the Maryknoll Missal texts! If you look at the Sacramentary's copyrights, they are PJ Kenedy & Sons (the Maryknoll Missal publishers), 1957-61. Better than the St Joseph Daily Missal, but that's not saying much.
Appeal to your Canadian/Australian readers. They never had such a supplementary book, since they had the orations (but not the Prefaces) in English right from 1964 on, published by Benziger in NYC, and – here's the important part: the orations were translated by the renowned Christian Latinist, Dr Christine Mohrmann (her Collects also appear in Benziger's one-volume Roman Breviary 1964). You will find them far superior to the Maryknoll Missal/USA Sacramentary 1966 version. This would indeed be a very worthwhile online resource, quite worthy of The Chant Cafe and your excellent new chants!
The implication of abrogation finesse in Summorum Pontificum is that the interim Missals between 1962 and 1970 have been abrogated….
This is well-done chant. I know the challenges of pulling a diverse group together at a conference – this is impressive. Apart from differences in schools of rhythmic interpretation, the conducting of Dr. Mahrt is clear and graceful and musical.
awr
The tunes of the ordinary settings of the Mass, which had stabilized for many hundreds of years, were very much tied to the Latin language. This is true with all music, not just ritual music
Obviously you will not be smoking fine cigars with Mgr. Schmitt (Boys' Town) in the hereafter. You'll have to settle for fine wine with Mgr. Schuler…
Msgr. Schmitt wouldn't disagree. He tried to find solutions to the problem he was presented but he in no way saw the task of translating Latin chant to English to be an effortless one.
Jeffrey,
"I'm thinking however that we do need a 1965 online."
Here it is: http://www.coreyzelinski.8m.com/1965_Mass/
Maybe that is all we need, but I was thinking about the entire Missal actually.
If we revert to saying Mass in Latin it will, at a stroke, solve all the problems associated with translating into different languages. The problem is that very few people will understand it – it may just as well be Martian! The Gospels have all been translated into different languages, but this hasn't prevented a very broad consensus and understanding of the nature and message to the World, of Jesus Christ. Instead of tiresomely debating whether yet another change is needed, why not give some thought to the immense financial implications and whether our wealth would be better spent in helping the many who need it?