I våre tradisjonelle latinske søndagsmesser i Oslo synges alltid messens proprium på latin med de foreskrevne gregorianske melodier, og slik bør det være – selv om det også om nødvendig er tillatt å synge disse tekstene på latin til enklere melodier. Men i andre messer, mer vanlige menighetsmesser, mener flere at dette vil være mindre passende.
Jeffrey Tucker og László Dobszay (i artikkelen jeg nevnte tidligere i dag) mener (faktisk) også det; slik skriver Tucker:
However, he (Dobszay) was also nearly alone, for many years, in being an advocate of sung vernacular propers in the ordinary form.
For years, I couldn’t understand his thinking here. Why vernacular? Well, Dobszay saw that there was a step missing in the achievement of the ideal if we expect to take a leap from the prevailing practice of pop songs with random text to Latin chant from the Graduale Romanum. That step was to sing the Mass texts in the vernacular according to a chant-based idiom drawn from our long musical tradition.
He turns out to be incredibly correct on this point. In fact, he was the true inspiration behind the Simple English Propers, book that has permitted regular parishes to start singing chant for the first time. This book and so many others are part of his legacy that he left in this world. In fact, I would even suggest that the new translation of the Roman Missal that is implemented this Advent owes much to his influence.
Just this week, I had a conversation with a dedicated Church musician who had converted to the chant cause and implemented sung propers in Latin in her parish. This approach was making gains in Mass after Mass for two solid years. Then one day the pastor came to her and said: “I’m not really sure that the introit you are singing really serves its purpose. I think the people are afraid of the Latin, regard the schola as somewhat separate from everything else, and I fear that this approach is alienating people.”
She was stunned and of course bristled. But what the pastor says goes, as we all know. Tragically, progress stopped. Now the parish is back to singing English hymns that are not part of the Mass proper. They are just hymn selections chosen the same week from a check list of possible pieces to sing. The choir was no longer singing the liturgy; it was singing something else.
So what went wrong? … it is crucial to consider that the pastor’s objection was not to Mass propers but rather to Latin. …
I kommentarene til dette innlegget finner jeg også to spesielt interessante synspunkter:
… Does it have to be plainchant? Why not set the propers to the more standard Psalm fare available? Something like Psallite but with a closer adherence to the text. For some of us even plainchant is a big step for a parish to accept. If the primary goal is to use the propers, maybe a baby step is first needed. Then down the road, when the parish hears propers set to plainchant, the transition will be easier. …
… I had a priest friend who was a peritus at the Council. HIs understanding of the liturgical reforms was that the Ordinary was to remain in Latin with the people to learn to sing, in Latin, the parts proper to them but eventually the orations and propers would be in the vernacular. Too bad that didn’t happen that way. We would have been spared a lot of pain …
Nei, nei, nei!
Dette syns jeg du bør begrunne, Atle.
Og vi snakker ikke her om en tradisjonell latinsk messe, en missa cantata, men om den nye messen på morsmålet, der det hevdes at messens ordinarium bør synges på latin til en gregoriansk melodi (og gjerne også prefasjon og canon skal være på latin), men man ser det ikke som mulig (eller særlig ønskelig) at også messens proprium skal være på latin. Og man argumenterer med at messens proprium bør være på morsmålet for at folk skal forstå, eller man argumenterer mer praktisk; hvis man ikke bruker morsmålet der, vil man ikke synge messens proprium i det hele tatt, men erstatte dette med (mer eller mindre passende) salmer. Har du ikke noen forståelse for noen av disse argumentene?
Jeg leste nylig noe fra SiSiNoNo som jeg synes opplyser dette spørsmål.
Jeg siterer det direkte, på engelsk: «The use, on a massive scale, of vernacular languages in the Catholic liturgy, has introduced into the liturgy the sad procession of the human passions. It could not be otherwise, for every language is primarily the expression and the explosion of the «I». It always tries to put itself on a pidestal instead of being the servant of the revealed truth.
…….language must be used at the level of liturgical prayer and in propagation of the Faith, where it performs a priceless service, language must operate at a higher, universal level, and be the fruit of humility, prayer and divine transcendence; these are the components of a sacred language.
Jeg ville ønske at vår praksis lignet litt mer på praksisen i den Russisk Orthodokse kirke, som står fast ved sin liturgi, og forandrer aldri noe. Det er det som heter standhaftighet, men det ord er nesten utav våre språk. Folkespråket utelukker ofte folk fra andre nasjoner fra liturgien og forståelsen av den, men det gjør latinen ikke.
Det at vi skal diskutere i tid og utide hva vi synes om alle mulige ting i Kirken, er ofte bare en lang egotrip. Det er vel ikke meningen?
Takk for et grundigere svar enn jeg fortjente! Jeg har sans for ditt annet argument, at verdige melodier til proprium kan virke som en forsikring mot den forflatning av både melodi og tekst vi så altfor ofte ser, men vil betrakte dette som en nødløsning. Den tradisjonelle (gregorianske) messesang er en fullkommen sammensmelting av ord og toner i forhold til hvilken de forskjellige tilpasninger nødvendigvis må komme til kort, og dessuten vil enhver oversettelse minske messens universelle preg. Dog som et første skritt i menighetens gjeninnføring i katolsk tradisjon vil disse bearbeidelsene helt sikkert ville kunne være fruktbare.