Wednesday, January 10, 2007

Great resource for music planners

Here is a site that provides, for each Sunday and feast:
  • a list of the readings prescribed by the Roman Lectionary;
  • a commentary on the readings, showing the connection intended by the lectionary framers utilizing the device called “typology;”
  • a quotation from one of the Fathers of the Church about the reading/s;
  • a hymn, based on the readings provided;
  • a translation of the propers assigned to each Sunday in the Roman Gradual; and
  • suggested propers for the Sunday from the Simple Gradual, with page references to “By Flowing Waters” (pub. The Liturgical Press), provided by Dr. Paul F. Ford.

A veritable goldmine.

I would be curious of the opinions of those more learned on the quality of hymn texts.

“Worship” journal

I thought I would blog a bit this morning on the liturgical journal “Worship”.

A well-meaning relative bought me a gift subscription to it for my most recent birthday. It’s an interesting read - definitely not for the academically faint-of-heart, but also definitely “left-leaning” liturgically (as much as I despise such terminology with regard to liturgy).

This most recent issue has a couple articles that, to me, are of note - one on Communion on Good Friday, which apparently remains a serious question among liturgists (among whom I do not really number myself).

The second one, though, is in Nathan Mitchell’s recurring column, “The Amen Corner”. Here he rehashes some of the arguments against the document Liturgiam authenticam - mostly stuff we’ve seen before.

A few thoughts I had that I wanted to pass on to the blogosphere for commentary (those few readers our blog may still have left, with PT and I so rarely posting lately):
  • Why must people insist on replacing Latin terms for the liturgical texts (“Gloria”, “Agnus Dei”, et al.) with English equivalents, like “Glory to God”? Maybe because I’ve spent so much time, as a choral musician, with the Latin texts, that people referring to them in a vernacular tongue just sounds strange. Anyone else feel like this is just goofy?
  • Am I correct in thinking that the time since V2 is unique in that the Church is expected to worship not only in Latin, but also in vernacular tongues? The examples I see Mitchell cite of the history of liturgical/Scriptural translation seem more to do with translations that replace, rather than complement, the original texts.
  • Why do Bp. Trautman & Co. assume that active participation in the liturgy is inimical to the use of Latin or “more Latinistic” English? And, are those who think that way favoring “participation” to such an extent that participation in the liturgy is hampered? I mean, if it’s just about participation, let’s get rid of anything liturgical - clearly, it is important to recall that V2 emphasized not just participation, but participation in the liturgy.