Easter Vigil Psalms sans organ?

PurpleSquirrel

Hi everyone,
Our latest Priest threw us a curve ball last Easter. He insisted organ (or any other instrument) is not to be played during the Psalms at the Easter Vigil. Can someone confirm this please, with related quotes from The Instruction Manual? (Whichever manual that happens to be...)
As always, with much thanks,
Your Canadian Squirrel.

Adam Wood

Did he insist on it like he thought it was a rule? Or did he insist on it because he thought it would be awesome?

PaixGioiaAmor

This is the tradition. Much like the no solo organ during Lent rule, I'm not sure it's 100% in force nor, practically speaking, really enforceable.

We do it anyway. It's not hard. Find simple psalms, from Chabanel or the Michel Guimont Psalms, etc. They can be done without accompaniment very easily. And it often is, as Adam put it, awesome. It's always something to hear the whole church of people chant back a response a cappella. This is one of those days in the year when they come ready to sing.

lmassery

I never thought that was a rule, though we do it anyway. Arlene OZ's psalms, available at chabanel, work well for us.

canadash

Although it may seem daunting, try it. It is quite effective to have no instrumental accompaniment until the ringing of the bells at the Gloria. This is even better if the organ/instruments are mute following Holy Thursday.

CharlesW

I use the organ to accompany the psalms, but play it softly. It is just loud enough to keep the singers focused and on pitch. I have never seen anything in writing that says not to play the organ at the vigil.

Ben

I've heard that the organ should be silent if at all possible after the gloria on Holy Thursday until the gloria on Holy Saturday. Perhaps that's what he's talking about.

ronkrisman

Check your Missals. It is the law in the 1962 Missal; it is not the law in the 1969 and subsequent Missals. The 1962 Missale Romanum, Mass of the Lord's Supper (De Missa solemni vespertina in Cena Domini), rubric no. 7:

Altaris incensatione peracta, celebrans Kyrie, eléison recitato, incipit solemniter Glória in excélsis, et pulsantur campanae et organum, quae, expleto hymno, silent usque ad Vigiliam paschalem.

The underlined phrase indicates that the bells and organ, which play during the Gloria, are silent until the Easter Vigil. And at the Easter Vigil another rubric, again at the Gloria, brings back the bells and the organ.

Liam

And, btw, that's because, in the preconciliar ritual, the vigil was not part of the Mass as such, which began with the Gloria. That distinction does not obtain in the postconciliar ritual.

chonak

The most up-to-date versions of Arlene's psalms (with post-publication corrections) are on the CMAA site at http://musicasacra.com/pbp/

M. Jackson Osborn

Singing them accompanimentless is ideal. You should be glad that you have such a liturgically aware pastor. You might set your psalms either to various of the eight Gregorian psalm tones, or to the modal St Meinrad tones, or a combinbation of the two. If your choir are up to it, you could even have them sing some of the psalms (or alternate verses) to unaccompanied Anglican chant. Instruments really are neither needed nor appropriate, and you have quite a good selection of alternative a capella performance possibilities. As for the responds which the people sing, write your own very simple modal responds to go with the mode of the Gregorian or St Meinrad tone that you use for a given psalm.

ronkrisman

MJO, I have absolutely nothing against singing the psalms at the Easter Vigil unaccompanied. But the OP's pastor is hardly "liturgically aware" if, indeed, as the OP stated, "he (the pastor) insisted organ (or any other instrument) is not to be played during the Psalms at the Easter Vigil." That is saying something which the current rubrics do not support.

M. Jackson Osborn

Am I mistaken? I have long thought that the organ was to remain silent from Maundy Thursday Gloria to Easter Even Gloria. I am mistaken? (This is not, sad to say, to suggest that I have managed always to DO what I thought was correct.)

ronkrisman

Six responses above I gave the rubric from the 1962 Missale Romanum. I did not give the corresponding rubric from the 2010 third edition of The Roman Missal, thinking that everyone would have access to that.

But, yes, MJO, the rubric about silencing the bells and the organ has been changed. The English translation of the rubric from RM 2010 (Thursday of the Lord's Supper: At the Evening Mass) reads:

The Gloria in excelsis (Glory to God in the highest) is said. While the hymn is being sung, bells are rung, and when it is finished, they remain silent until the Gloria in excelsis of the Easter Vigil, unless, if appropriate, the Diocesan Bishop has decided otherwise. Likewise, during the same period, the organ and other musical instruments may be used only so as to support the singing.

CharlesW

I knew the rules had been changed, so thanks for posting this. With the revised vigil RCIA functions take up a significant amount of time, as well. This would not have been the case in 1962 when baptisms were performed outside of the mass and confirmations were done by bishops. It's not your grandfather's liturgy anymore and it is no longer possible to do things as you remember them. The vigil program is on my music rack the entire time and I refer to it often.

PaixGioiaAmor

But what does the RCIA have to do with doing psalms accompanied or not?

Adam Wood

I pastor who knows what the rubrics USED TO BE, or even has some vague notion of what might be a good idea is still more liturgically aware than average.

PaixGioiaAmor

It's not your grandfather's liturgy anymore and it is no longer possible to do things as you remember them. The vigil program is on my music rack the entire time and I refer to it often.

I still don't get this statement. I don't disagree with it, but I don't find it applicable to this particular issue/discussion.

CharlesW

I was thinking and responding more to the good father's note on how things have changed.

PGA, I find that I have to pay more attention than I once did. Before the revised missal, I could operate on auto-pilot most of the time - and knew most of the old legislation. And that vigil has gotten so loooong! Wish I could cut about an hour out of it since it is 3 and 1/2 hours for us. I would give up accompanying the psalms if it would make the vigil shorter. ;-)

It seems typical on this forum that someone comes up with rules that were superseded years ago and a discussion follows as to whether or not the old rules are still to be obeyed. The answer is, not if they have been replaced with more current legislation. Unless one is working with an EF mass, it is irrelevant what the 1962 missal and accompanying documents call for.

Ben

Agreed, Adam Wood. He sure sounds liturgically aware to me.

PurpleSquirrel

Thank you everyone. I missed these discussions. You guys always have such great insight.

noel jones, aago

It really becomes an issue of whether or not you wish to return to worship as it was or continue to swim in a swift-moving stream along with all the other fish.

This priest is interested in swimming against the tide. It's not whether to jump, it's how high. He's really making statement, knowing that it will make a difference to some people and make a point at the same times. Many people might think the organ is broken. It then becomes a teaching moment for you and him. Cool. As CharlesW would agree, you have your own Fr. John Orr there!

Andrew Motyka

When the OP's priest "insists" that the Easter Vigil psalms not be accompanied, is he stating that it is the liturgical law, or is he simply giving a directive as your boss? If the former, he's wrong. If the latter, you should do it anyway.

It is not necessary to sing a cappella from Holy Thursday until Easter Vigil, as Fr. Ron Krisman has cited. It's not prohibited, either. I think it adds good solemnity, and so I do it. I don't insist that everyone do it.

M. Jackson Osborn

Noel! Your analogy of fish in the stream is challengeable. Someone once pointed out to me that the only fish 'swimming' with the tide are dead. Tides are good for rivers and streams. In human society, though, they are often suffocating. And, one might observe that the causes to which most of us on this forum are dedicated go very much against the tide!

Andrew Motyka

Much like the no solo organ during Lent rule, I'm not sure it's 100% in force

It's not a rule, unlike the no solo organ during Lent rule, which very much exists in the current Missal and is very much in force.

nor, practically speaking, really enforceable.

True. I think reasonable people can disagree whether to be literalistic about the no-Lenten-instrumental-solos rule, but I wouldn't judge any liturgical rule by whether or not it's enforceable. Very few liturgical things are actually enforced; that doesn't make them not law.

melofluent

This will be ANATHEMA to many here ALERT.
It has literally just occured to me, the wisdom of the displaced MCW's third criteria, the "pastoral judgment," has relevance here.
Caveat: let's agree to suspend fundamentalism and admit that we all bend, like trees, to the rule as the occasion demands.
There is nothing commendable about the rubricism for its own sake mandate of legislation other than the combined wisdom of the magisterial consensus that produced it. Yes, it is an ideal to be striven for.
But I liken the reality to that of icons. If the icon is worthy, it will stand alone as a witness to the mystery. But if the performance, the rendition of the icon (a poorly sung Ubi caritas... Pange lingua.....Popule meus...etc.) proves a hindrance, distraction to the honest moment of adoration or worship, then it is lost art. If the icon is true, but also framed by an accompaniment, there is no obstacle, only enhancement to the beauty of the moment.
We tend towards an errant wish that all singers, in whatever conglomerate, are idealisticly fulfilling the optimal condition that the human voice, in text, is the sole and supreme vehicle of voiced human worship. Yes, that's the ideal.
But MCW, for all its faults, allows that assistance, via the intellect and capable hands of an organist, can ameliorate some deficiencies for the benefit of all in the moment.
YMMV

ronkrisman

I appreciate Melo's suggestion that we, in his words, "suspend fundamentalism" in our approach to Missal rubrics, particularly in regards to that Holy Thursday rubric no. 7, which goes from "no bells and organ" in the Latin editio typica of the Missale Romanum (I have a copy of the 1971 printing) to "the organ and other instruments may be used only to support the singing" in the 2010 English translation of the third edition of The Roman Missal.

The canonist in me wants to check the Latin of that rubric, to see if what we have in the English translation conforms in every respect to the Latin. I do not have access to the 2000/2002 Missale Romanum, and I would appreciate someone who does supplying the full Latin text of that rubric no. 7. Gracias.

PaixGioiaAmor

As I get older, more experienced, and dare I say, even possibly wiser, I find myself increasingly drawn more and more to two diametrically opposed views.

On one hand, I've come to reject the liturgical praxis of my youth, where, growing up in a late 80's and early 90's suburban parish, I was taught that the rules and rubrics really just provide a "starting point." I've come to appreciate that the Church has more wisdom than us, and has laid down rubrics to be observed.

At the same time, I've come to an even greater appreciation of the NUANCES of the law and the rubrics, and I reject out of hand the fundamentalists who would, in all cases, say "The rubric says it, that settles it."

A former pastor with a Master's degree in liturgy from Notre Dame once talked circles around me about the reasons for a rubric, and he quoted at length Saints, mystics, and brilliant people from the magisterium who talked about examining the purposes of rubrics in order to learn HOW to follow them. At the time, as many here would do, I sort of just thought in my head that he was an unorthodox, "crazy liberal" who will come up with any excuse to not follow the rules.

Then I thought about it more - and have thought about it more over several years. Can you really just dismiss people like this out of hand, with a wave of the hand and a proclamation that "I know better; the black and white letter of the missal is to be followed?" I actually think he was quite right now.

We are, after all, in this for the salvation of souls. What leads to that end should be pursued. If a rubric divides a parish, makes people leave the faith, and subverts the Church, do we just follow it slavishly, while condemning those who run out the door?

What would Pope Francis say? What would Jesus do?

PaixGioiaAmor

Lest I talk too much, I should add another caveat.

The answer isn't to just ignore rubrics any more than it is to slavishly follow them.

Even if people in the parish are angry that women's feet are not being washed, I don't think the answer is to just give in and wash women's feet.

I'm talking about something bigger; I'm talking about a state of mind and an understanding regarding legislation and rubrics.

PurpleSquirrel

Well said Paix.
Adam & Andrew: Just to clarify, our Priest insisted it was absolute, not-to-be-argued, Liturgical Law. He doesn't speak English well, and he only quickly pointed out the one line, about the bells.

Earl_Grey

I knew an organist who insisted on not using the organ from the Gloria on Holy Thursday until the Gloria of the Vigil for the sake of tradition, but that didn't stop him from using the piano during that time! Kind of funny.

For several years at my last parish we used the Psalm settings by Columba Kelly and for the first few years the cantor's needed some type of accompaniment so I did so softly--just and 8' flute. Then after a few years of that, the settings became familiar enough to where no instrumental support was required and we did them a cappella. It really depends on the situation.

So in the case of the OP, if pure a cappella is desirable but not yet possible, perhaps such a "progressive" approach might be applied. Select settings that can be done well a capplla and then for this year, accompany them lightly and then over the course of a few years fade out the accompaniment, acknowledging of course that is not wrong to to sing the psalms with or without accompaniment.

CharlesW

I have to agree. What I should do may be written, therefore making the existence of the universe hinge upon it. What I can do depends on clergy, choir capabilities, building design, hymnals, worship aids, mindset of the congregation, and on and on. Then there is what some think I should do, which is not based on any relevant texts in any authoritative source.

melofluent

Even if people in the parish are angry that women's feet are not being washed, I don't think the answer is to just give in and wash women's feet.
I'm talking about something bigger; I'm talking about a state of mind and an understanding regarding legislation and rubrics.

PGA, that's very timely observational advice. The rubric in the Missal is unequivocal, and is even quoted in the subsequent advisory document from the USCCB. However the USCCB then goes further, with very equivocative (but not obscurist) advice that pastoral needs and concerns ought to be informed by the example of Christ in toto, not just in the upper room, and even according to the (unstated, but implied) Pauline (Galatians) criteria.
The trouble is that it seems that most folk don't prefer to entertain or exercize options, it's too much work and burden upon them that leads to blame and recrimination. But really, what's the price paid for this one example of servitude?
If a pastor's exegesis of the mandatum in the Holy Thursday homily includes mention of HHF's practice of that just last year as laudible, but then he selects only viri for the rite that follows, what is the net effect? Again, I put more stock in How we do What we do, than the mere words meant to instruct us.

PaixGioiaAmor

Yes Melo, I agree.

I think that we all need to develop a sort of "philosophy of rubrics."

I had a conversation with an organ professor about a section of some degree requirements which said that "one memorized recital shall be given." He said "Don't let that scare you; we will accept the equivalent of one memorized recital, performed piece by piece, over time, in studio classes and the like for that." I expressed some surprise. He said "Well, I helped write the catalog and that was my intent. I just want people getting some experience playing from memory in front of other people, that's all."

If that situation were a liturgy and he were a priest, how many would be calling him a "liberal" and deriding him for not clearly following the black and white letter of the catalog?

jpal

In response to Fr. Krisman's request:

Dicitur Gloria in excélsis. Dum cantatur hymnus, pulsantur campanae, eoque expleto, silent usque ad Glória in excélsis Vigiliae paschalis, nisi Episcopus diocesanus, pro opportunitate, aliud statuerit. Item, eodem tempore organum aliaque musica instrumenta adhiberi possunt tantummodo ad cantum sustentandum.

I am not a Latin expert, but the 2010 translation seems to be an accurate rendering of the intent above.

G

I knew an organist who insisted on not using the organ from the Gloria on Holy Thursday until the Gloria of the Vigil for the sake of tradition, but that didn't stop him from using the piano during that time!

Yes, I spent one Triduum listening to piano, drums, tambourine, flute and guitar, in various combinations, since TPTB said that rules and traditions only specified going easy on the organ.
I suspect it is not usually organists that read things that way, it is others playing "gotcha" with the organist.

(Save the Liturgy, save the World)

PaixGioiaAmor

That's obviously ridiculous.

In a former parish, I did however use the piano - only on one psalm during the Easter vigil, and I played it so softly that I don't know how well it was even heard in the church. The piano sat right next to the cantor down in the front, and if I hadn't played, I suspect that she would have made a mess of the psalm, although she WAS a good singer.

matthewj

My Advice:
-Follow your boss's instructions.
-If your boss isn't making these instructions and you are able to follow the older tradition (read: your choir and cantors/psalmists are capable) and allow for some mutual enrichment from the other form of the Roman Rite, then do everything a capella from Gloria to Gloria.
-If your boss isn't making these instructions and you fear of a terrible disaster due if you follow the older tradition (read: your choir and cantors/psalmists are not capable), then accompany the singing.
-If you are presently unable to do an entire Mass a capella (read: your choir and cantors/psalmists are not capable), this is something you should work on.

ronkrisman

Thank you, jpal, for supplying the Latin text of the rubric I referred to. It does agree with the English translation in the 2010 The Roman Missal.

In light of the many fine comments on this thread, and on the other one concerning Good Friday, I have a few questions.

1. Does no one find it strange that, with Cardinal Medina as the prefect of the CDWDS, the 2000 Missale Romanum would lighten up on the requirement of no musical accompaniment during the Paschal Triduum? In reviewing the rubric, the first (1970) and second (1975) Latin typical editions of the Missale Romanum say that the bells and organ are silent from the completion of the Gloria on Holy Thursday through the Gloria at the Easter Vigil. The USA’s Sacramentary only says, “During the singing of the Gloria the church bells are rung and then remain silent until the Easter Vigil, unless the conference of bishops or the Ordinary decrees otherwise.” There is no mention of the organ.

2. When it made the rubrical change in the 2000 MR was the CDWDS perhaps simply responding to the fact that, in the majority of Catholic churches worldwide, a strict “no musical instruments” was no longer the prevailing practice?

3. Or was the CDWDS responding to something else, something more fundamental, namely, the 1969 reform of the Roman calendar? With Lent now ending when the Mass of the Lord’s Supper begins, and with the entire Paschal Triduum being outside the Lenten season, was the rubrical change made to heighten the difference of character between the Lenten season and the Triduum?

Olbash

It is a beautiful custom to sing without accompaniment between the Gloria of Holy Thursday and the Gloria of the Easter Vigil. This is one case when, even if your priest might be slightly misinformed, you should nod mournfully and say "Yes, Father" and then gleefully do a happy dance in the corner.

The Parish Book of English Psalms, referenced above, is a great way to go, especially if the group is not accustomed to singing polyphony.

It's a great opportunity to sing a gradual chant, or a polyphonic motet , in place of one or more of the responsorial psalms. A variety of responses to the readings might be an enjoyable break in what to some might seem a long and monotonous Liturgy of the Word. Palestrina's Sicut Cervus comes to mind. It might be a good time to try some fauxbourdons, too -- I think Sam Schmidt's settings on the ccwatershed site have some written out nicely in English. Perhaps a psalm could be sung antiphonally on a psalm tone -- the left side of the church sings a half verse and the right side another half verse, all pointed and printed ahead of time.

The possibilities are endless. There is life beyond Respond and Acclaim!

Andrew Motyka

With Lent now ending when the Mass of the Lord’s Supper begins, and with the entire Paschal Triduum being outside the Lenten season, was the rubrical change made to heighten the difference of character between the Lenten season and the Triduum?

I doubt that being the reason, because the rubric for instrumental music during the Triduum is exactly the same as it is during Lent, even though it is distinguished as a season.

ronkrisman

Of course, you are correct, Andrew. I must still not be wide awake.

ronkrisman

I hope that we can stop calling others "misinformed" - slightly or gravely - when they do not silence musical instruments between the Glorias of the Mass of the Lord's Supper and the Easter Vigil. As this discussion has made clear, the rubric calling for such silencing has been changed.

CharlesW

I'm a bit curious about something. The EF mass group is using the organ to accompany singing during Lent and they maintain it is legal because the rules have changed. I know the rules changed for the OF, but are the local EF folks "misinformed?" I wasn't aware of any rule changes for the folks using the 1962 missal.

Ben

Charles, it was still allowed during lent in 1962, if it was supporting singing. It's instrumentals that are not allowed...I sang an accompanied pieces just two weeks ago.

chonak

De musica sacra, 1958:

Paragraph 81 has the strict rule, and 83 rolls it back, allowing organ music at Mass and Vespers to support the singing.

81. Accordingly, the playing of the organ, and all other instruments is forbidden for liturgical functions, except Benediction, during the following times:

a) Advent, from first Vespers of the first Sunday of Advent until None of the Vigil of Christmas;

b) Lent and Passiontide, from Matins of Ash Wednesday until the hymn Gloria in excelsis Deo in the Solemn Mass of the Easter Vigil;

c) the September Ember days if the ferial Mass and Office are celebrated;

d) in all Offices and Masses of the Dead.

82. Only the organ may be used on the Sundays of Septuagesima, Sexagesima, and Quinquagesima, and on the ferial days following these Sundays.

83. However, during the seasons, and days just mentioned, the following exceptions to the rule may be made:

a) the organ may be played, and other instruments used on holy days of obligation, and holidays (except Sundays), on the feasts of the principal local patron saint, the titular day, and the dedication anniversary of the local church, the titular or founder's day of a religious congregation, and on the occasion of some extraordinary solemnity;

b) the organ only (including the harmonium or reed organ) may be used on the third Sunday of Advent, and the fourth Sunday of Lent, on Thursday of Holy Week during the Mass of Chrism, and during the solemn evening Mass of the Last Supper from the beginning to the end of the hymn Gloria in excelsis Deo;

c) the organ only may be used at Mass, and Vespers for the sole purpose of supporting the singing.

Local Ordinaries may determine more precisely the application of these prohibitions, and permissions according to the approved local or regional customs.

84. Throughout the Sacred Triduum, from the midnight before Holy Thursday until the hymn Gloria in excelsis Deo of the Solemn Mass of the Easter Vigil, the organ or harmonium shall remain completely silent, excepting the instance mentioned in paragraph 83b.

This prohibition holds even for private devotions during the Sacred Triduum; no exceptions or contrary custom are to be tolerated.

- See more at: http://www.adoremus.org/1958Intro-sac-mus.html

CHGiffen

But 84 implies that 83c does NOT apply from the end of the Gloria on Thursday of Holy Week until the Gloria at the Easter Vigil.

chonak

Yep.

Adam Wood

These rubrics require IMAGINATION.

Jahaza

For future reference, the 2002 Latin Missal is available from the Congregation of Clergy web site here.

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories