I love our priest who reminds us it is a sin to think the mass is too long, then reminds those people the sacrament of reconciliation is made available during mass in the confessional boxes. We usually have time for another hymn or instrumental music from the time communion is all taken to the time the celebrant sits down and leads a prayer to Mary.
Then there are those who demand every mass end exactly 53 minutes after beginning, the so-called drive-thru priest. They are usually supported by a deacon who will turn his head and say "start now" if we don't start singing during the period of time the holy eucharist goes from being in his hands to his mouth.

So the musician(s) should work towards a balance--that is, the answer to all things is not "mo' music."

I'm in general agreement with this statement, however, when the natural flow of the music is curtailed because the priest is trying to shorten the Mass as much as possible, a great disservice is being done. When music that is perceived as being "too long," such as Gregorian chant and polyphony, is banned for that reason, a great disservice is being done.

I spoke of music as ritual's inseparable handmaiden

Perhaps much of the present Catholic music problem arose when, as at JFK's funeral, the music was unrelated to the liturgy. There seems no connection or relationship whatever between the operatic Ave Maria and the simultaneous speaking of the Cardinal Archbishop. (around 10 minutes in, at the Kyrie)

Richard, while that is true, I don't think that's what the Honourable Member meant, but rather that the New Liturgy (Mass and Office) is so terse as to practically (if not rubrically) rule out the use of "long" music, that is, anything longer than the three-fold Easter Vigil Alleluia or Kyrie XVI is seen as unduly prolonging the Mass; at Evening Prayer, the Magnificat should be recited as quickly as possible to allow everyone to get to their dinner reservations: something as simple as the famous Mode VIII Lassus alternatim setting would be too much, let alone Collegium Regale!

Even something like the Ott Offertorium is useless now, we don't need the verses: The way the average priest says Mass, the offertory rite is finished before choir has completed the first melisma. When looking at works (vocal and instrumental) written as Offertoria, it is important to think about the context of the composition: an Offertoire from an Messe d'Orgue that today in the N.O. might seem to be four-times too long, probably perfectly fit the Offertory Rite of a Neo-Gallican Usage with an Offertory Procession used in a Religious House in 18th cent. Paris.

Thank you, Salieri -
and, in response to Richard and Chris -

I did not mean the EF only, but any use of the Roman rite. Gorgeous anthems such as the ones I cited above are too lengthy, and too powerful as works of art in themselves, to find a proper place within the Catholic mass. I would say the same of Mozart, et al., ordinaries (which, to my mind, are an abuse of both the EF and the OF). Much as we all love music, as church musicians we are bound to take pride in our music being a part of the liturgical flow, and not as sort of a 300 carat ring on some dowager's hand. Anthems or other music which stall or cause delay in the next 'wave' of the ritual flow are out of place totally. Oddly, it is the champions of the OF (though their musical taste often leaves much to be desired) who are likely to be sensitive to these principles. EF folk don't seem to mind at all waiting ten minutes for a Mozart Gloria or Sanctus. This gratuitous savagery of ritual pace speaks, I think, volumes about their true liturgical proclivities. There are, of course, those who would argue that such music was made for the mass of that time and vice versa. And I would respond that that is precisely what is/was wrong with both. The principles which I enunciate apply, to my mind, to all liturgy, all rites, and all uses.

The real beauty of the ritual music of the polyphonic era (or that which follows in its footsteps) is that it is, so it would seem, conceptually ceremonial in nature, has an ecclesiastical bearing and a spiritual sobriety that makes it an unarguable grace to any liturgy, any rite or use. After Monteverdi this all began to change, to go, in a word, 'downhill'. Modern equivalents, such as RVW's G-minor mass, are the exceptions. Like chant itself, this music simply 'fits' - in every sense of the word.

I just tell the pastor ahead of time, we are singing, "Up the Creek With Palestrina," today and it will be a little long. He always says, "fine." I find that informing him ahead of time prevents problems.

Richard -
Good for you!
I'm sorry I'm not there to hear it.

Actually, if one's offertory time allows for such works that is wonderful. Most Catholic offertories are relatively brief. But if one's clergy don't mind taking their time about receiving the gifts, censing the altar, saying their prayers and all, what could be better! In fact, they, too, should be pleased to finesse here and there.

It cannot be over-stressed that ritual is spontateous interplay betwixt all involved. This involves, nay, requires, mental engagement and deliberately responsive action from clergy, people (everyone of them!), choirs, cantors, choirmasters, organists, and all. Notice that this list does not include announcers and people who tell other people what to do, or when to do it. Their very involvement is a glaring and shameful indication that some or all don't know what they very well ought to know (or just won't do without prodding) and that the sacred ritual dance is broken.

Trad -

You are correct! The alleluia and its verse cannot be thought of as an added element which delays ritual action. It is an integral part of the ritual action, which should be conducted in such manner as to embrace it. There is no lack of ritual activity that can and should 'fill in' the time during which the alleluya responsory is sung. Walk ceremoniously, take one's time blessing incense, take profound footsteps in approaching the ambo and cense the gospel book with great reverential deliberation. It sounds to me as though your complainers, as is often the case, probably haven't much understanding of ritual gravitas. Anyone whose mind is on how long it ('it' being anything) takes has one's mind on the wrong thing and needs a course on what liturgy is and how to keep one's mind on making it a continuum of gorgeous worship.

It is good to try to sing the complete alleluya responsory from the Graduale or P-B, but if this really isn't going to be accepted in one's situation, there is no shame in opting for the AUG or something similar. If you do this, you might be able to get your clergy 'on board' for the Gregorian version at least on solemnities.

As for the graduals: they, too, can hardly be thought of as 'stopping the flow' when they (and, obviously, their performance) are an integral part, element, in that flow. Most nowadays, I think, do the psalm responsory rather that the gradual, so you are blessed that you are even permitted to sing the graduals. Like the alleluya and verse, though, if there is too much agitation over the time the Gregorian version takes, opt for a psalm tone version or something similar. Then, as with the alleluya and verse, perhaps you can be permitted the Gregorian version on solemnities. The graduals are amongst the most ancient and ecstatic chants, and frequently betray an oriental provenance. It's wonderful that you are trying to keep them alive!

And, as for doing a 'biggish piece' as an offertory, this, too, should be something that the 'flow' can be adjusted to accommodate. There is much that can take up time during the offertory rites, plus taking one's time in doing this 'much'. Certainly on a solemnity everything in the mass should be done as if one 'had all day' in the doing of it. Communication with clergy is essential for to have everyone dancing the sacred ritual dance together and in anticipation of each other's 'steps' - and 'everyone' includes an alert and engaged congregation, whose acts, too, are integral to the 'flow'.

At Walsingham's solemn high mass (every Sunday and Solemnity - including week-day solemnities) we always have a gospel procession, in which, with great ceremony, a procession (including crucifer [vested, Sarum style, in tunicle], torch bearers, boat boy, thuribler, deacon, and book bearer) forms in the chancel, and moves out from the chancel (through our new rood screen!) and into the nave to proclaim the gospel in the midst of the people. The time for us, then, is generous. Just this last Sunday (CtK) the alleluya verse was a thirteen bar polyphonic setting of Potestas eius that I had composed, which ended exactly when the gospel reached the people. As for the psalm, we do it in directum to Anglican chant.

I realise that everyone is not so blessed with clergy (including a bishop!) whose foremost concern is the beauty of liturgy - or, as we often say with the psalmist, to 'worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness'. This is fundamental to our Anglican heritage and patrimony.

Thank you!

The timing of this thread was almost providential - a few very good friends of mine and I were having this discussion not long ago - one of them, coming from a "Low-Mass" culture (but is surely recovering!) and who happens to be one of the chief MCs for the parish, had the above criticism for me. The others all sing with me. It made for a lively conversation, to say the least. One day while he was making his opinion known to his wife (who also sings in our choir), she stopped him and said, "If you were praying, then you wouldn't be annoyed at the length of the Gradual and Alleluia!" He has since rethought his stance on the issue!

On the other hand, our parish has very little acoustic value, and, as a result, I feel some obligation to stress to the schola just how important attention to detail is, so that we don't become a cross for the congregation to bear.

I am very lucky to work for a pastor who is so open to the growth of the music program - to the point that we even have a daily Traditional Missa Cantata during the week. I can't think of another diocesan parish that does that. He was skeptical, at first, of the full G and A propers, but has since come around.

MJO - thank you, again, for your response.

Regarding the Gradual and Alleluia, if arguing, I would assert that the fact that they do "hold up" the action is especial grounds for singing these particular propers in full: because a shortened version will not give the same flow as the delay-causing full version as given by the liturgical chant books, which is what the church desires to have sung.

Which consideration not being present with the other propers of the Mass, you could even argue that it ought to be a higher priority to sing the full gradual and alleluia, than to sing the full introit, offertory or communion.

I think of the Alleluia as an elaboration of the response of the disciples in Emmaus would have had if they had their theophany from the start of their encounter with our Lord on the road....

Ah yes. The drive-thru faith.

Ah yes. The drive-thru faith.

The purpose of which is to get as many people through the doors as possible on Sundays. Of course, this has the added benefit of the potential increase in collections, but that's none of my business.

"I am amazed at the lack of Christian charity on nominally Catholic fora."

The Internet as a medium invites a lowering of inhibitions that way.

It was not bhcordova who deployed that phrase.

So anyway, some parishes blessed with multiple buildings have the ability to shuffle the post-liturgical social gathering off away from the sanctuary.

Drive-thrus may increase collections, but at what cost?

@Liam, thank you. I stand corrected. @bhcordova, my apologies. @Continuousbass, thank you for clarifying.

I invoked the phrase because to me it describes a scheduling scheme which has ultimate power over how the mass is celebrated.

Exactly. I was elaborating on the possible causes underlying it. For example, what does it matter to which Catholic parish people go for Mass? If there are three parishes serving a city, why does it specifically matter if people go to parish A instead of parish B or C? I bring this up because my experience as a DM and teacher at now two Catholic schools that pastors are very concerned about keeping people coming to their specific parish. The only difference I can see, from the administrative perspective, is whether or not they get the possibility of that person's money in the collection. Again, from my own experience, pastors are very concerned about losing parishioners to the other Catholic church down the road. Why? My theory is that, based on what the parish would lose if people left it to go to another Catholic parish, the money would go with the people. I'm not convinced that pastors would be too worked up about losing parishioners who are readers or ushers, since they can be easily replaced by someone else who wants to "participate." However, they can't easily replace the money that may go with them. I've even heard a bishop say it, "You have to keep the donors happy." He said this in a meeting I was a part of regarding a parish capital project that included my pastor and the director of the office of worship for the diocese. If parishioners leave parish A and go to parish B, parish A doesn't get their money anymore, parish B does.

Of course, all of this is part of my attempt to answer the burning question: why are Gregorian chant and Latin no longer permitted by many priests at the parish level? What are they afraid of? What are the motivations behind it? The answers given by the priests I've asked have been noncommittal and seemed like they were avoiding the question and trying to brush the topic aside. This tells me that those are the kinds of questions we SHOULD be asking: if someone doesn't want to give you a straight answer, or their answers don't make sense, or they don't want to answer questions about a topic, then they are likely hiding something. I still maintain, however, that the musical and liturgical situations in the Church are not the main problems in and of themselves: they are symptoms of a much larger issue. I think that issue is the view of the Mass as being chiefly a gathering of people, and not primarily the sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. Please don't misunderstand me: I believe the Mass still contains a true and propitiatory sacrifice. I do, however, think that the sacrifice has become secondary to the gathering of the congregation in liturgical planning, preparation, and execution, as well as in the administrative governance of the parish environment.

The alternative to "drive thru" is building a church large enough to seat everyone at the same time. Who has that kind of money? We don't. We take a 400 seat sanctuary and use it 5 times on Sundays.

"Drive-thru" has a negative connotation: it implies an attitude of quantity over quality. I have no problems with re-using church space during the weekend, and I acknowledge that in many cases, if not most cases, it is actually required in order that the parishioners can fulfill their Sunday obligations: you can't have the building so full that you have to turn people away at the door. However, the "drive-thru" mentality places the quantity of people over the quality of the liturgy. Some examples include: "I don't want Gregorian chant because it's too long," "stop the music as soon as you see I'm ready," "I shouldn't have to wait for the music to finish," "I've re-arranged the order of the offertory procession so that I can shave a few minutes off the Mass," "I don't want the choir singing motets, because those pieces take up too much time after Communion," "the choir is no longer allowed to sing after Communion, because we need to move on," "I'll never use EP 1 because it's too long," etc. Quantity over quality.

Time was, 60 years ago, when the London parish in which I was baptised would have the final, midday, mass with the forecourt half full of men who could not get into the church, rain or shine. The doors would be open, and popular theory was that if you could see someone who could see the altar, you were fulfilling your obligation. That was a predominantly Irish community.
Encouragingly, there is a newly aquired church now, a mile and a half down the road, with a Polish community (including clergy) which accomodates its 5000 congregation with 8 masses spaced out every 90 minutes (skipping 4pm) from 8:30am to 8:30pm.

The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory
chant...

Does this not mean that the 'Offertory chant' is obligatory? Further, since the only 'Offertory chant' is the one in the GR, that would mean that it was expected (as in required) to be sung - I would assume either as in the GR or in translation and/or to other appropriate music. Whatever other music is sung, then, is sung in addition to the required Offertory chant. - But, I suspect that the places at which the Offertory chant is sung are relatively few.

One of the lovely things about Ordinariate liturgy is that all the propers are required at every mass. The translation used is that of Palmer-Burgess with some tweeking here and there.

Clerget -
Not at all to question your quite lucid estimation that many Protestant converts have exercised a negative influence on Catholic worship. However, I know not a few Catholics (some of whom grew up with chant!) who absolutely detest Gregorian chant and Latin. All of the (horribly misinformed) 'that's not Vatican II' people are not of Protestant origin. I dare say that most of them are very nasty Catholics. Betwixt the ex-Protestants and the un-Catholic Catholics we have a potent force, potent because too many priests and functionaries take such people very seriously when, verily, they should pay them no mind at all.

On the other hand, there are not a few Protestants who like Gregorian chant and Latin more than many Catholics do. Some, particularly Anglicans, treasure it as part of our Christian heritage, or as a badge of honour which says 'we are Catholic, too', and so forth. One would be surprised at what very very Catholic piety and belief may be found in large numbers of Protestants of all varieties. I have known numbers of Lutherans who invoke the saints, pray for the dead, and believe in transubstantiation - all of which are anathema to orthodox Lutheran teaching.

This is, indeed, a very complex matter. We cannot escape the reality that no one was holding a gun to the heads of those who wrecked Catholic liturgy and music after the council. These were men bent on putting an end to what they saw as the ancient regime which they despised. No music, no klutzy liturgy, no watering down of faith and morals would have happened at all if the bishops and priests had not asked for it, or were very willing accomplices - or stood by and deliberately did nothing - and that includes 'Rome'. This perversion of Vatican II was shoveled down our throats (though many of us have yet to swallow it, nor will we ever) by our own people. No one can blame the Protestants for it.

nobody in the USA has ever gotten such permission

What GIRM permits, in the USA, is selection at will of a text that has been approved by the diocesan bishop, or by USCCB. I have been told, I think on this forum, that it is enough that one US bishop has approved, (and that LTP is approved).
In England, on the other hand, there is nothing licit in English, as far as I know, except the 1968 ICEL GS, as the bishops have completely ducked their responsibility. This makes no difference in practice. (Perhaps it could be argued that the office hymns in DO are liturgically approved.)

What the US bishops did was delegate to the ordinaries of the jurisdiction of publication (like the Abp of Portland in Oregon, the Apb of Chicago, the Bp of St Cloud, et cet.) to do that. This all went into a black hole in the last decade, when Rome stopped implementing LA to the letter. The long-sought silver bullet to "fix" it is illusory.

All this comment about "drive through" reminds me if a Lutheran churc I worked fir that had a drive in service. People would drive up to the back of the church and tune their car radios to the church station where they would hear the service and sermon, them communion was served to them in their cars. Not kidding.

Forgive me for trying to tie this all up in a sentence or two.

Romeo and Juliet.

West Side Story and all the other paraphrased versions movies based on R & J.

The Latin Mass

The Novus Ordo Mass and all the other paraphrased and personalized versions of it.

Clerget: LA; what is it?

Liturgiam Authenticam (2001)

CDWDS
Fifth Instruction for the Right Implementation of the
Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy

On the Use of Vernacular Languages in the Publication of the Books of the Roman Liturgy

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20010507_liturgiam-authenticam_en.html