The key to making change happen
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    I've been working on an examination of Musicam sacram, focusing on sections 28 through 31. These sections put forth a plan or road map for instituting progressively higher degrees of participation. In SttL, there's discussion of "progressive solemnity" which I believe (at least for now, unless further research suggests otherwise) is a distortion of Musicam sacram's intended progressive development of higher degrees of participation, NOT "solemnity". (I've sent a series of spread sheets that trace this, as well as lay out a possible scheme for applying the degrees of participation set forth in MS as applied to the average American parish celebrating the OF in English, even though MS was written with the EF in mind; the OF as we know it was not promulgated until 3 years later, as most readers here well-know.)

    It became apparent, and perhaps I'm stating the obvious here (a talent I excel in), that in order for the logical progression of greater participation as set forth in MS and applied to the OF in English to proceed, there is an implicit reliance first and foremost upon the willingness of the clergy to chant the dialogues, a phenomenon that is perhaps the exception rather than the rule, based on my experiences.

    So, despite our best intentions, and based on my theory derived from MS regarding progression in participation, we can attempt to improve the music of the Mass and increase the participation all we like. We're simply spinning our wheels if we're dealing with clergy who are unable or unwilling to actively chant the dialogues that are the keystone of establishing greater participation according to the Mind of the Church. (This is not a slam on the clergy. In my experience even the ones that have the intention of cooperating with the advancement of participation in line with MS find that their ability to do so is often thwarted by the many other demands placed upon them.)

    How, then, do we in charity encourage and promote the chanting of these dialogues on the part of the clergy, and by extension, how do we legitimately advance the cause for chanted Propers, et al, when dealing with clergy who are obdurate or obstinate in their willingness to properly sing the part assigned to them? It seems to me that without this cooperation, all other efforts are for naught.

    Thoughts? Experiences? Opinions?
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    David,

    You are quite right, "progressive solemnity" is a distortion of the degrees of the employment of music from Musicam Sacram. I commented on that in Sacred Music, Spring, 2008, p. 45.

    I think the ideal is the completely sung Mass, and this pertains to the whole year, not just major feasts. The way the tradition defined differences in solemnity was through the use or absence of the organ, the use of the Gloria, the alleluia, the cycles of the ordinary, etc. , but all that was in the context of a continuing singing of the whole Mass. Musicam Sacram proposes the degrees of the employment of music in order to achieve the completely sung Mass. This is clear because the discussion begins by asserting that the distinction between low Mass and High Mass remains.

    It is sometimes said that Musicam Sacram cannot pertain to the present, because it was about the old rite. This is not true; it remains liturgical law, not just nice recommendations. In certain points, the change of rite calls for modification of provisions in Musicam Sacram, but in the main, it remains in force: it is liturgical law, but Sing to the Lord is not.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    willingness of the clergy ... thwarted by the many other demands placed upon them.

    Ordination is required for the Sacraments.
    All other demands are secondary as they do not require ordination.

    When the priest is already vested and standing in the sanctuary,
    I do not see how chant is thwarted by anyone;
    it is all a decision of the priest: chant or speak.

    without this cooperation

    How many times do musicians wait patiently through spoken texts for the moment of the ...
    Sanctus, and start music?
    Amen, and start music?
    ... etc ...

    I have pondered having the choir chant all responses,
    regardless of priest behavior.
    What makes the dialogues different?
    Why not make our musician behavior totally consistent?

    When the priest finishes doing whatever he wants to do, musicians do music. Period.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    Dr. Marht - More likely than not I read your article and my mind rediscovered the information and claimed it as its own! I recall attending a "breakout" session at the NPM national convention in 2007 (literally the day after Summorum Pontificum was issued) where several presenters asserted to those in attendance the very premise you have stated: MS cannot be taken to apply to the Missal 1970 since it was written in 1967, therefore none of it is useful and should be disregarded as "outdated" or "irrelevant." To try and apply the degrees of participation to the Mass as we know it now would be backward or an exercise in futility. Of course, they also eschewed the idea of easing the restrictions on the celebration of the EF as being "backward". It's an old saw; we understand what they're driving at.

    eft - I simply can't imagine engaging in dialogues between priest and people when the priest's bit is spoken and the people respond with singing. I've had to do it on rare occasions when the priest simply couldn't sing, and it felt clumsy and "forced" or contrived. More to the point, why hold musicians and the people to a higher standard (an expectation that they sing, in obedience to the expressed instructions and desires of Holy Church) than the priests, who are bound in obedience to follow the directives of the Church in these matters?

    My point is that in some cases priests are unable or unwilling to cooperate with the paradigm of sung dialogues as a starting point for increased (authentic) participation on the part of the people out of fear. Others derive their unwillingness out of sheer stubbornness, or a belief that singing the dialogues somehow renders the Mass "too formal". You ask, "When the priest finishes doing whatever he wants to do . . . " This is not, nor has it ever been an issue of "want". It is an issue of fidelity and obedience to the Church, and a duty to safeguard and promote the Faith as handed down by tradition.

    It seems to me that, based on what is set forth in MS, to permit or expect the people or more especially a schola to sing the more advanced parts of the Mass (as described in the second and third degrees) apart from an authentic rendering of the dialogues in chant and in cooperation between the priest/celebrant and the people as the foundation of active participation reduces the addition of chanted propers, etc., to the level of novelty. If the Pastor of the parish cannot, or will not, cooperate with the advancement of participation in the way proposed by MS, then anything else established will be built on a sandy foundation.

    So permit me to restate my questions:

    1) How do we encourage and promote the chanting of the dialogues by the priests, and

    2) Does it make sense to engage in the establishment of the singing of elements of the Mass from the second and third degree categories set forth in MS without first establishing the practice of chanting the dialogues?
  • Randolph Nichols
    Posts: 398
    How do we encourage and promote the chanting of the dialogues by the priests . . .

    It has to start with seminary training. Unfortunately, music study of any sort is not required in many seminaries. Boston's St. John's Seminary is a case in point. Until that cultural deficit is addressed musicians must rely on their own initiative and - of course - dumb luck.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,033
    Excellent points, all.

    I would only suggest that if the celebrant wants the people to sing, you can argue that this makes little sense if he himself refuses to do so. People instinctively react to the expectation to sing if the leader (the priest) does not sing - and I don't blame them. When the Kyrie or the opening prayer or the preface dialogue is sung, people DO sing in response - we've all had this experience, including priests. If singing is done as a normal, expected part of mass, then there is hope that the people will follow suit - otherwise, not.

    On the other hand, if he's really not interested in anyone singing, then I suppose there is little you can do.
  • eft94530eft94530
    Posts: 1,577
    Quite simply "the key to making change happen" is the will of the priest.
    There are dozens of CMAA Forum Discussions where we talk around the problem.
    There are a handful of Discussions where solutions are proposed and ignored.
    I hope that this Discussion does not join that list.

    For more than a few weeks I have been thinking about what I wrote in my previous post.
    All of us must stop caving to "peer" pressure and "superior" pressure and
    stop worrying about how something sounds and just do the right thing.

    For so many years we have listened to the priest speak and then incongruously sung the ordinary,
    that we we think this is normal and acceptable, when it is not.
    It has been doing no more than what those non-authoritative
    USCCB docs (PMEC,MCW,LMT,STTL) said to do.

    If we really believe that Musicam Sacram (1967) is an authoritative document
    then we ought to do what it says, not wait for cues from others.
    Really implementing MS means we really tighten up our act as musicians
    and really do the first level of singing that MS proposes we do,
    regardless of others.

    1) How do we encourage

    For the last several months I have directed my attention
    to a large non-work-non-music task and been away from the Forum.
    Only in the past 24 hours have I discovered that CMAA members had,
    in a two week period, proposed and organised and funded ($5,000+) a chant project.

    Certainly the same method could fund a project
    which assembles Vatican documents and sing-along files and scores and videos,
    and mails a CD to every seminarian and transitional deacon and priest in the USA.

    There are tasks of the project to which I could contribute time with others.
    What is the list of documents?
    Where are the scores?
    Does CMAA have an address list of all seminaries in the USA?
    Does CMAA have a list of seminarians at each?
    Can CMAA members assemble all this info in a Google Doc
    so that everyone sees visible progress on this part of the project?
    When will we do it?

    Clearly there are CMAA members who have a decent singing voice,
    or the right computer equipment, or both, given the materials regularly posted to the Forum.
    So, when will they do it?

    In the mean time ...

    How about choir rehearsals devoted to dialogue practice?
    The rehearsals occur with a priest in attendance.
    The priest sits in the Tenor-Bass section.
    A starting pitch comes from the keyboard preceding the priest part,
    and the entire group sings everything,
    all the priest parts and all the people parts.
    Repeat multiple times. Go to the next section, etc.
    The priest does not solo, everyone (including the priest)
    learns to listen for the keyboard pitch at the start,
    gets the instructions to overcome problems like
    scooping, no LoRRRd, no HoHo syllables,
    entire phrase in one breath, etc.

    Maybe we can contact each Diocese and make sure that
    when a priest shows up and participates in a two hour choir rehearsal
    he will get whatever is the proper amount of CEUs.
    Make all choir present sign the paper, take digital group photo, whatever as proof.

    2) Does it make sense

    No, it does not "make sense", until the priest finally does his job and chants.
    Then, in one instant, it all does "make sense",
    and everyone together experiences the huge leap forward.

    Waiting until the priest one day sings to take the next step
    and begin to train and educate choir and congregation puts the goal that much farther away.
    A housing construction site always has materials for the next task showing up a little at a time.
    But we are not doing that.

    We are trying to move a house from pre-Vatican-Two land to post-Vatican-Two land.
  • mahrt
    Posts: 517
    Curiously, Musicam Sacram does seem to allow proper and ordinary without the singing of the priest: "36. There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses." Admittedly, this says "some;" I agree that without the priest, the chanted proper and ordinary are less effective; still they are probably better than the "songs" that usually replace them.
  • Ruth Lapeyre
    Posts: 341
    I teach voice at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit. Both Ron Prowse (director of Music at the seminary) and myself encourage the singing of the dialogues and many of the young men want to learn how. Last year I mentioned the problems musicians so often face in the Church today to Dr. Ed Peters who teaches Canon Law. To my surprise he had written an article that addresses these problems. You might find it interesting.


    http://www.canonlaw.info/a_labyrinth.htm
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,046
    Interesting piece, Ruth. While such a codification would be a comfort for those wondering what to do, I think it's also a matter of "Be careful what you ask for; you might get it." A re-reading of the Epistle to the Romans might be relevant here. A future reaction to the unbridled creativity of the present liturgical age might be the suppression of creativity.
Add a Comment