Removed by author

I think we are in two different camps on some issues. Some, like MACW, are in an EF community and see their practices as some kind of norm. It is a norm, for them, but not for the rest of us who neither aspire to, nor even want, EF masses. Granted, we all know what the other extreme offers, and I am pretty sure most of us want none of that. My own aspirations are to make the OF masses in which I work, the best English masses possible, using an Anglican model as my guide. That is not MACW's norm, not should it be, but is the norm in my parish. Considering alternatives, it is not a bad norm, but it isn't transitional. It is exactly where we want to be and intend to stay for the time being. If some future director wants to take this foundation and build on it, more power to him/her/it/them.

Charles W, please don't speak for me. I've worked in an EF environment fairly recently- not even 5 years yet. I remain quite connected to the goings on in my diocese, teach diocesan chant classes, and have no intention of stopping that. I've also been a DM at two fairly average parishes before that.

I'm not in an Anglican camp, or and EF camp. I'm just Catholic. Beware of putting people in camps in order to explain away their position.

Agreed that what works in one place might not work in another, as I've repeatedly acknowledged.

Disagree that there is no standard, default, received set of prayers.

It's not about me or Mahrt or CMAA or you or your pastor or me or my pastor. The paradigm, the standard, the ideal, the default model, etc., whatever term you choose, is there for everyone to know and love amd take as their patrimony as Catholics. Its in the current GIRM, and it's just part of the Church's treasury of sacred music.

If the chants in the GR were not the ideal, why do transitional editions like the SEP take them as such, and model their compositions in the likeness of the authentic chants?

Deleted

If the chants in the GR were not the ideal, why do transitional editions like the SEP take them as such, and model their compositions in the likeness of the authentic chants?

Perhaps the answer can be found in the words of JPII:

With regard to compositions of liturgical music, I make my own the "general rule" that St Pius X formulated in these words: "The more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savour the Gregorian melodic form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple"[33]. It is not, of course, a question of imitating Gregorian chant but rather of ensuring that new compositions are imbued with the same spirit that inspired and little by little came to shape it.

For new compositions, the ideal is the spirit  of Gregorian chant, which, as David astutely said, is "beautifully rendered and yet designed to honor the rhythm, flow, syllabic stresses, cadencial patterns, etc. of English similar to the way in which Gregorian chant functions for the Latin language."

And as Melo posted from JT's interview, it's "really urgent that we stop thinking about the problems of the music in the Mass as a war between styles....What we need to be talking about is the texts and that’s where it has to begin."

If the Proper text is there (which also includes the licit RM text) and the style is "imbued with the same spirit that inspired [Gregorian chant]," then that music will have made a "great contribution," as David said, "to advancing the cause for reverent music at Mass in keeping with our unique identity," and it truly is a "huge improvement," as JT said in his interview.

JulieColl, I never understood why, when vernacular masses were allowed in the 60s, we didn't use an Anglican model instead of starting from scratch. The Anglicans had already done the work, and beautifully at that.

Perhaps not the model I may have wished for. You would have to admit The Hymnal 1940 beats the daylights out of Gather Comprehensive, any day. Do you think Joncas, Haas, and other "Catholic" composers can approach the quality output of the great English anthem writers? I never said the Anglican model was perfect, but it did have some advantages.

Anglicanism serves as a great model now. 50 years ago, especially in the US- not so much.

I'd love to see more Anglican and English Catholic hymns in more mainstream parishes. They're generally quite beautiful. I would resist all English all or mostly English ordinaries and propers (which I'm well aware is what is happening now) because that would mean losing great treasures and it would liturgically cut off English speakers from the rest of the Church in terms of our public worship. Given political realities, if we isolate ourselves in language, we also risk schism, such as the emergence of a national church.

The Latin OF (or EF) with vernacular hymns has the potential to appeal to the local community as well as keep the local connected to the universal.

Time will tel whether the Latin OF is given enough of a chance. That's out of my hands.

The only thing I can do is sing and train others. I'm really grateful to be able to pray it and teach lots of people various ages Gregorian chant. Who knows how long I'll be able to do that, but I'm grateful for what I can do now. I've found that lots of people can sing chant and come to be attached to it. That's if- a huge if, I know!- they're allowed to be taught the chants that as theirs as Catholics. So much hinges on pastors and seminaries. Such are the times in which we are living.

I'd love to see more Anglican and English Catholic hymns in more mainstream parishes. They're generally quite beautiful. I would resist all English all or mostly English ordinaries and propers (which I'm well aware is what is happening now) because that would mean losing great treasures and it would liturgically cut off English speakers from the rest of the Church in terms of our public worship. Given political realities, if we isolate ourselves in language, we also risk schism, such as the emergence of a national church.

BINGO.

Wisdom from on high.

Unfortunately the National Church has already been established for a century.

http://www.amazon.com/American-Church-Remarkable-Uncertain-Catholicism/dp/1586177575

There you have it, straight down from the mountain and the burning bush.
Now, don't chortle silently to yourself while thinking "I knew I was right after all! ;-)

I guess the conversation here is a bit silly, important, but silly.
I am happy and the Church is happy if anyone uses the SEP instead of no propers, yes.

My feeling is however, that there could in fact be a single person or two or three who sings most of this elaborate music.

The true problem is that no one will give the power to sing what ought to be sung to the people who have the talent, and or will not pay them.

Think of all the talented artists in the world, think of how few of them are actually employed in Roman Catholic Churches today? Especially in english speaking (Irish clergy dominated) North America.

Is this not a scandal? Are they employed and respected more in anglican, episcopal and eastern orthodox/eastern catholic churches?? YES THEY ARE.

I think this is not so much a matter of elitism as a problem of the recognition of roles not being granted. When in the history of the church before the reformation was church music handled as it is now? Their is a role for lifelong church muscians who sing sophisticated elaborate adult music - not kindergarten music.
In any other profession this would not occur.

We don't go up to the average nurse in the hospital and expect them to be the surgeon and tell them we're simplifying the role of operating so they can remove the kindey without killing the patient since they have no training in it. (let's not bring up nurse practicioners ;-) No one would expect this, no stands for this. Why is that?

The Simple English Propers continue the kindergarten mentality. Which is fine for those who don't have the role of church music as their vocation and profession in the truest historic sense. They dont go to the root of the problem. The root of the problem is a refusal to truly take sacred music properly in the Roman Catholic Church.

That's it, it is not done. Not much left to say.Until church music is handled as it was before the reformation, not much progress will ever be made.

When I worship at an average diocesan latin rite parish, realistically I expect no propers.

When I worship in an SSPX chapel at a high mass, ideally I expect latin propers.
When I worship at a Personal Ordinariate church, ideally I expect english propers.


In neither case do I expect the quality or melodies to be different, should they be using the same lectionary (sadly those don't always coincide).


The Latin rite is permanently divided into different cultural expressions, in my opinion.
I feel quite certain Latin rite in China is never going to embrace latin to the extent of the USA no matter how much Mary Ann Carr or myself would expect them too. It would be silly to expect such. For European dominant/colonial societies perhaps it is an expectation that is feasiable.

As we speak now, about a half million Guatemalan mayas are having the byzantine rite liturgies translated into mayan. I wonder will they ever embrace latin chant?

I think that the less one is able to understand the words, the less language matters.
The more that it is syllabic and not melismatic, the more there will be room for other liturgical languages besides latin (notice that I did'nt say room for "vernacular vulgar tongues").

To the extent that the USA is a very multicultural society, and or that latin is a more musical language, the majority of music exists in it and that it can be seen as unifying beyond a single culture, it makes sense to place emphasis on latin.

English is now a language spoken by 2 BILLION PEOPLE !

Therefore it is not unrealistic to expect similar things from english. Could 16th c. english (or perhaps 7th c.?) being in the process of becoming a bonafide "unchanging" liturgical language as well ? It certainly is for the Anglican use ordinariates.

I dont know how much language matters.
It matters as much as people want it to matter.

As we speak now, about a half million Guatemalan mayas are having the byzantine rite liturgies translated into mayan. I wonder will they ever embrace latin chant?

Chris, I read your post with great interest, and this passage struck me. From what I understand, the use of Latin spread to South America several centuries ago with the missionaries in the Age of Exploration in the 1600's and 1700's.

I remember reading in Pope Benedict XIV's (1749) encyclical on liturgical reform, Annus qui, that not only was Gregorian chant in use in Paraguay, but also the use of accompanied chant:

"The use of harmonic or figurative chant and of musical instruments at Masses, at Vespers and other Church functions is now so largely spread that it has also reached Paraguay."

Prof. Mahrt, thanks for weighing in on this subject. I truly appreciate how you are able to get to the heart of why there is an ideal, and discuss the roles of the chants. I also take your point about learning and singing the authentic propers even if you can't sing them, just to familiarize oneself and move toward the ideal. I'm very glad I took to heart your counsel and began exploring the propers. When a job came around that (most gratefully) allowed me to sing and teach the propers, I was ready.

Greg, really important point. I had not heard of the propers 10&1/2 years ago. Then I went to a Colloquium, and my experience was profound. As recently as 7-8 years ago I remember hearing Prof. Mahrt discuss why the Gradual and Alleluia were so important. At first I was almost offended, thinking, "Hey, I sing responsorial psalms and some of them can be beautiful." Then I started actually studying and singing and hearing Graduals and Alleluias and wouldn't have those chants relegated to history for anything. They are the crown jewels of our treasury of our inherited sacred music.

I think that if we continue to work and show their beauty, [propers' beauty] more and more people will come to appreciate them. Maybe not in our lifetimes, but we have done our best, praise God.

My thoughts exactly. Do what we can and keep our eyes on heaven.

I want to push back on the idea that the chant melody is just as proper as the text. Some posts above even referred to the SEP as falling in category 3 (another collection of psalms and antiphons) or 4 (alius cantus). Not so! The GIRM says that the first option is:

the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (my emphasis)

The SEP are clearly another musical setting of the Graduale chants, thus option #1. Obviously, the Graduale chants are privileged - they are the authentic chant repertoire. However, there is no reason to list the SEP or any other musical settings of the proper antiphons as "alius cantus" or some other less-favored option.

Option one of the GIRM includes the SEP, as well as polyphonic settings of the proper antiphon from any era and IN ANY LANGUAGE. Unless we are arguing that translating from Latin makes an antiphon no longer proper?

One of the posts kirchenmusik mentions was mine. I was referring to the Latin and Canadian versions of the GIRM, which don't offer this choice. The Latin says "extans in" and the Canadian says "from" the graduals, in both versions without suggesting other settings. Also, there are no translations, hence no vernacular, except when the Gradual proper is also the Missal proper.

I really like, and use, many of the currently available English propers, chant like and otherwise. I just don't want to argue the GIRM alone to prove they "should" be used instead of hymns. However, down there in the US you can, if you want.

Could it be a case of
Tricksy Translators?

Could the GIRM in Bolivia mean something quite different from the GIRM in Thailand, or the GIRM in Switzerland?

Does that mean that option 1 for Windsor, Canada, means chants from the Gradual but that Joe B in Detroit, USA, can put his (rather deliciously funny) jazz styled chants on par with the Gradual?

Hmmmmm. I might switch to jazz after all in that case.

[this entire post has been in purple bold]

If you have the choice of heading to a random church in Windsor, Ontario and a random church in Detroit, Michigan (which are right next to each other), go with the Detroit one. Your odds of finding decent music is much better in Detroit. Unless it's 2pm in the afternoon on a Sunday.

I think it's a far better joke when the person doesn't know how to do the purple. I refuse to learn for this very reason.

There are just too many times when people think others are being serious when they are really not. A little purple goes a long way.

The rule was clearly written by someone(s) who didn't know what they were talking about. So trying to parse out the legalistic meaning in order to arrive at the spirit of the thing is a fool's errand.

The legal reality is you can sing just about any damn thing you want. The spirit of the rule is that Propers have precedence, and that you should do the best you can.

I wish my friend, a priest who was a Benedictine monk and chantmaster for many years, could weigh in on this discussion. He told me once that he was commissioned by his order to translate the propers of the Graduale Romanum into English, using the same melodies. He labored on the project for a number of years before concluding that it could not be done.

He left the order and became a diocesan priest and has not sung the propers for many years. Knowing his background, I asked him during Lent last year if he could sing the Resurrexi since I was having trouble with the tristrophas, and I will never forget the way he took the music in his hands and the reverence and love with which he looked at it.

Despite being a stoic German by nature, he did get emotional for a little bit but then he started tentatively to sing with a few stops and starts, and, after a few moments, was chanting like a pro. It was the most amazing experience, like watching a great old ship's engine rumbling to life after years of disuse. (One interesting thing: he would not sing the Alleluia since it was still Lent, but only used the vowel sound "A")

What most impressed me was the obvious devotion he had for the propers. After two years of singing them at our EF Missa Cantata, I'm becoming "addicted" to them as well. The melodies seep into your soul; the Latin words and phrases and the idioms start influencing your language and the themes fill your soul with wonder. The EF propers have become my spiritual life, and I couldn't imagine life without them.

Now that I have a Liber Usualis, I'm starting to realize how it has shaped the theology, spirituality and language of the Catholic Church over the centuries. So many connections are being made when I read the chants.

One last thing: I love the poetry of Karol Wojtyla and now I'm able to recognize that his lexicon as a poet is taken from the Liber, and no doubt his other writings as well.

What I'm trying to say is the Liber Usualis is a profound musical, literary, spiritual and theological treasure for the Church, and even if one cannot use it all in its original form, at least parts of it should be incorporated into one's spiritual and liturgical life.

For example, Ordinary Time 32 B+C communio = Psalm 23. If I schedule "The King of Love My Shepherd is" or "My shepherd will supply my need" I have accomplished something closer to the ideal than I would by throwing in a generic "alius cantus" communion hymn.

I completely agree with you there, Kirchenmusik! Thank you for all of your clarification.

FWIW I have a chant schola and we sing Graduale chants every Sunday. However, that is only at one Mass and there are five a weekend here. There is no way that my large, mixed adult choir will be singing Graduale propers in the near future - or maybe ever, with the exception perhaps of some of the shorter communios. Chant is better suited to a schola that can focus on it and become adept at reading and interpretation. Could the larger choir learn all of that? Of course. Would it alienate many (most) of them to spend large periods of choir time learning a new notation and repertoire? Yes, in this case. The Graduale is not a battle I am willing to fight, when I already have a 40 voice choir with a large repertoire of excellent sacred music. In the same way, I do not push a lot of Renaissance polyphony on this choir as it takes forever to learn and is harder for them to approach in terms of vocal tone. Of course, we have Sicut Cervus and a couple others, but largely stick to Classical and later repertoire. I also have an excellent schola cantorum that sings exclusively Renaissance polyphony. I experience the most musical success and highest choir morale when I match different genres with different ensembles.

What's the point of all this? My large adult choir picks up the SEP easily, and enjoys singing those chants. And to the extent possible, we then match the text with pieces from our repertoire. I don't see this particular choir (our primary ensemble) moving towards the Graduale, which I feel would be a radical shift in their choral experience and would create major rifts. In moving this particular choir beyond the SEP, I don't see the Graduale on the horizon. My actual ideal would be modern proper compositions imbued with the chant tradition, and suited for a large adult choir. Until then, I see great value in a steady diet of excellent sacred music - matched, as much as possible, to the texts of the Graduale antiphons.

I don't see the Graduale as the only legitimate endpoint - I'll put it that way. And again, we have those chants every week here.