Shorter version: "Don't sweat the small stuff."

The style of the responses is refreshing to see also: as if to say, "what on earth gave you that idea?" One doesn't see that often.

Peter,
Adam and I exchanged a number of concerns over this recently at the Cafe (thread about Lumen Christe Missal) as well as a few conversations in the past. There is no doubt that the restoration of the three processional propers is the endgame ideal at stake. I, like Richard, was pleasantly surprised at the secretary's open-ended response; to me it indicates progress where stagnation used to reside. And you are spot on about rampant ignorance and preparation (more like reparation, I'd say.) But the crux of the issue, from my vantage, remains "just who is 'we?'" when it comes to "doing the Rite as intended." We used the music of those and more you cite, but I still have to tread very carefully, even if for only one of 15 weekend Masses, with the sensibilities of six possible celebrants, only one of whom is inclined to offer authentic liturgical catechesis within the context of Mass or outside in lectures. What we should pray and wish for might be some sort of national teachable moment such as has been witnessed by the closing of ranks of the bishops over the HHS mandate fiasco that has galvanized formerly disparate idealogues among their ranks towards unity, and thus energized a drowsy laity. We have some prominent voices, Burke, Olmstead, Vigneron, Cordileone, Slattery and others who have gone very public with their concerns and "remedies" for musical malaise. But I'd breathe easier if we had some sort of national moment displaying both brilliance and humility that would forever unravel the patchwork fabric of "make it up as we go along" and consumerist "supply and demand" chokeholds that have displaced the true Roman ritual culture in my lifetime. I think we're seeing much more "brick by brick" activity. We just need the laity to join in the building process.

The USCCB committee is surely right that the practice is not forbidden, but a further question remains, what is the most appropriate usage?

I contend that the style of the Gregorian introit is for the accompaniment of a procession, and therefore, it is best suited to be sung during the procession, not after it. The style of hymns have no such differentiation--the same hymn is sung for introit, offertory, or communion, while the Gregorian propers for these parts are beautifully differentiated. The introit can be sung for the duration of a long procession by alternating the antiphon with psalm verses.

This is not to say hymns are not legitimate, just to say that introit chants are better, even for long processions.

Ah, the lay magisterium approach, Dad, it sounds almost.....well, "spirit of VII," except now it's OUR "spirit of VII" that has the upper hand.
No one should be gloating. If the real Spirit has finally cleansed out the smoke damage, then there's a ton of cleanup to do in our parishes for a few decades, and we won't have any ecclesial FEMA to help.
I'd advise against trampling upon the faithful's sensibilities just because we have the documents in hand. I'd be happy they're still around being "the faithful" after all the crap they've endured from all quarters for half a century or more.

Okay here is a question with background. On Ash Wednesday at Sacred Heart Major Seminary in Detroit we will be Celebrating Morning Prayer in combination with Morning Mass. I have been rehearsing the schola to sing the Introit for the procession but what usually happens is the men sing the morning hymn from the psalter during the procession. I checked the General Instructions for the Liturgy of the Hours and here is what it says, Chapter II - VII 94"...the whole celebration may begin either with the introductory verse and hymn of morning prayer, especially on weekdays, or with the entrance song, procession, and celebrants greeting...." Or song isn't very specific but I sure hope it means the schola can chant the Introit for Ash Wednesday during the procession. Does anyone know if this is alright? --Ruth Lapeyre

"aut a cantu Introitus" Ah there it is! Thanks

What about the opposite? In other words, the Introit first (ala prelude) and then the processional hymn?

I don't think that is ideal, but better than no Introit at all.

It is, of course, better than no introit text at all.
How ideal is it? Tough question.

I've been to a few OF masses on both coasts of the U.S. where musicians were randomly unavailable and the priest(s) celebrating would read the propers throughout the mass.

In these situations, the introit has been consistently read once the priest is at the altar.

The only reason I mention this is to answer the question of using the introit as prelude. Perhaps it is licit... I can't really say. I don't know. I just thought it worth noting those experiences where I have actually heard the propers while visiting other parishes, it seems to be timed with the priest's arrival at the altar.

The Introit is usually sung at our parish for the E.F. Mass on Sunday mornings not at the processional but when the priest prays at the foot of the altar. In the O. F. Mass the Introit chant or antiphon and verse are chanted during the procession.

Ruth,
The timing you mention is part of the rubrics in EF. Patricia mentioned the prayers at the foot of the altar, which is why the introit happens a little bit later. There's a lot to be said by the priest/servers before he would even get to the introit.

This is also why I like the idea of the introit in OF being timed to when the priest reaches the altar. If he incenses it then there is plenty of time for the full chant, and it's a little more in line with the EF. Some sense of mutual enrichment, maybe...

Concerning the Communion antiphon, I chant this while the celebrant is communicating. Then, I will lead the faithful in the communion hymn.

amindthatsuits,

Are you familiar with EF and do you find that the placement of the Introit in OF, as you described, is related to the EF rubrics in a "mutually enriching" way?

Dear Ryand,

I have very limited experience with the Tridentine Mass, but I should clarify that when Bill Culverhouse, who now teaches at Earlham, was schola director at St. Matthew, the use of the Introit as a Call to Worship was very well done. It integrated beautifully with the service as a whole, such that this summer when there was all this "implementation" chatter I was going to bring that up as a solution. But that was Bill, also: talent DOES play its part, and he has it in boatloads.

I am about to return to my studies of the EF and the theology of it all and will think about it. As a musical choice, I think this works very well. As we move to a more organic musical experience of the Mass--toward what SHOULD be done-- then that is something that requires some thought and I am not qualified to talk about that at this point in my development.

Anyone else?

Kenneth

Steve, I concede that there are different styles of hymns, but there is no formal co-ordination of these with the place in the liturgy; If you do so, it is by option, and is likely to be partial.

We use a processional hymn at the entrance, followed by the Introit as the priest/bishop approaches the altar and incenses.

At offertory the choir sings the offertory proper and a motet/anthem.

Communion the schola chants the communion antiphon, followed by a motet. After communion the congregation sings a hymn of praise. (So no singing "with their mouth full.") :-)

This is quite different than the four hymn sandwich that was in place at my arrival 3 years ago.

Antithetical is not the term I would use. That would mean that both "a hymn" and the "assigned proper" have equal status in that particular place in the liturgy and one is just as appropriate as the other. This just isn't so. It is more accurate to say that a hymn displaces the actual text and chant of the Mass. Yes?

I agree that the hymn/introit mix described above can be a good stopgap measure to 'get the chant heard' - but I don' t find it ideal. I am more concerned with the musical aesthetic of the different pieces used. Volume is always relative - to the space and to immediate musical context. Coming out of a hushed pre-mass volume, the Introit has the potential to fill the acoustical space with sound. When the entrance hymn is metrical, with full organ accompaniment and congregational singing, the chant necessarily becomes a quiet afterthought (although excellent acoustics can lessen this effect somewhat). In that sense I prefer the Introit chant as a prelude, when it can at least be appreciated in comparison to silence rather than to a roaring metrical hymn.

It is interesting that we always consider programming when putting together a concert, but not when planning liturgical music. One reason concert programs very often go chronologically is because the emotional side of music has tended to ramp up over time (especially through the 19th and 20th centuries). That fiery Buxtehude toccata can sound downright quaint if you are foolish enough to place it after a French symphonic finale. The subtle dissonances that give a Frescobaldi toccata so much color may have the audience enraptured if programmed right - or looking at their watches if other, more colorful 20th century music has preceded it. Everything - volume, harmonic language, texture, emotional range - has a different effect based on its musical context.

Gregorian chant is the earliest, softest, most subtle music the assembly will ever hear. When people complain that chant is boring, I think that in many cases it is our fault for juxtaposing chant with more immediately accessible music (such as a rousing metrical, tonal hymn). No matter how vibrantly we perform the chant, we do not give the modern ear any time to adjust to its aesthetic. In fact, the more I think about it the more I would prefer to avoid chant entirely rather than inserting it piecemeal into a context where it can't be appreciated on its own terms. Do we trust that chant can have 'pride of place' and carry a liturgy all by itself? It is a leap of faith, to be sure.

I think the issue in American churches is that the hymns are entrenched and are now part of mass. It is the propers that most would consider the anomaly. I know several DMs personally who no longer have jobs because they replaced the hymns with propers. We can talk about ideals until we turn blue, but they are not the reality.

We're Anglo-Catholic, so we're likely not GIRM-compliant, but our standard practice at the main Sunday solemn Mass is for the sacred ministers and servers to enter during the opening hymn, and then right away the Asperges is done but without the Asperges texts: the hymn continues as the celebrant sprinkles himself, the altar, the servers, and then the sacred ministers head down the center aisle as the celebrant sprinkles the people. They wait at the back until the schola starts the introit. During the introit, they return to the sanctuary and cense the altar, then go to the sedilia. The celebrant stays in cope, except while preaching, until the deacon has set the altar for the offertory. Then the celebrant's cope is changed to chasuble before he ascends to offer the gifts. On rare occasions, the opening hymn is stretched by our wonderful organist by means of amazing improvisations before the final stanza and possibly after it if need be. Even more rarely, if the introit runs out before the ministers get to the sedilia, there might be a quiet improvisation at that point or a little silence.