Jimmy Johns?

*** Spoiler Alert****

Strange! .... but Refreshing ????

Andris, et al: Luther's German hymns, the Genevan psalter, etc. preceded the Catholic Betsingmesse by about two and a half centuries, so there's no chance Protestant vernacular hymn singing came from singing at Low Mass.

Singing only two or three stanzas of a hymn or metrical psalm is a longstanding custom in many Protestant churches of various nationalities. German Lutheran and Anglican practices aren't necessarily the norm in the Reformed churches or among Scandinavian Lutherans.

Even if the Catholic custom of singing hymns was borrowed from the Protestants, it would seem that the entire liturgical reform of Arbp. Bugnini parallels in many respects that of Arbp. Cranmer.

So . . . if Arbp. Bugnini was allowed to inform the Ordinary Form of the Mass with many of Arbp. Cranmer's elements, then what's the problem with singing a few vernacular hymns before or after the EF Mass?

I'm not trying to be polemical here, but the British author Michael Davies has a detailed chart in Pope Paul's New Mass which shows that Arbp. Bugnini's reform of the Mass parallels the reforms of Arbp. Cranmer in almost every respect.

It seems to me if you're going to say apriori that no element found in the Protestant tradition can find its way into the Catholic liturgy, then what are we supposed to do with the Ordinary Form?

If we're going to attack hymns as being Protestant, then we'd have to have a similar attitude to the Ordinary Form.

Just sayin'. : )

You've hit on something important, but possibly from the wrong angle... The OF indeed had Protestant influence, but not because the council wanted it...

http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2014/02/reforming-irreformable.html

I'm not saying it's invalid or even illicit, but I am saying it's much different than it should have been.

There were some cases of congregational hymn-singing at Mass before Luther. If I remember right, an article by Fr. Ruff documents a German hymn based on the Easter sequence back to the 1100s.

In March of 1965, in the periodical L'Osservatore Romano, Bugnini was quoted as saying: "We must strip from our Catholic prayers and from the Catholic liturgy everything which can be the shadow of a stumbling block for our separated brethren that is for the Protestants."

Again, without being polemical, and without trying to pass judgment, I think another insight into Arbp. Bugnini's vision for the Mass can be taken from his original definition of the Mass in the General Instruction of 1969:

"The Lord’s Supper, or Mass, is a sacred synaxis, or assembly of the people of God gathered together under the presidency of the priest to celebrate the memorial of the Lord." (Institutio Generalis, §7, 1969 version)

Now, in all fairness, it must be stated that due to the visceral reaction against this definition, it was later modified in a much better direction, but what is equally true is that, although Arbp. Bugnini was forced to improve his definition of the Mass, he did not add or change a single prayer in his new Missal as a result of it, so it can be stated that the best hermeneutic for interpreting the New Mass is through the intention of its principal author.

I know of no better evidence for Arbp. Bugnini's intentions as regards his new Missal than the 1965 L'Osservatore Romano quote above and his definition of 1969 which really is his way of defining his work.

I think it's also fair to say that this is why the Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith at the time, Cardinal Alfredo Ottaviani, reacted against the work of Arbp. Bugnini with his famous critical study of the New Mass which was presented to Pope Paul VI, in which he said the following in the cover letter to the Holy Father:

". . . The Novus Ordo represents, both as a whole and in its details, a striking departure from the Catholic theology of the Mass as it was formulated in Session XXIII of the Council of Trent." (A Brief Critical Study of the Novus Ordo Missae, September 25, 1969)

I'm not in any way questioning either the Council or the validity of the New Mass, or the Pope's right to promulgate it. I'm merely trying to take the author of the New Mass at his word and not superimpose my hermeneutic over his.

Thanks, Mad Organist, but I've said more than enough; I think it's better to let sleeping elephants lie. : )

Just as a thought experiment:

1. Pope Francis announces his retirement at some point.
2. At the conclave that follows, Cardinal X is elected Supreme Pontiff.
3. Cardinal X issues legislation to revise the liturgical books so that only the proper texts may be said or sung at the place of the Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons.

Which is least likely to happen?

A. Most Catholic parishes comply quickly and the proper texts are sung at most parish Sunday Masses.
B. Most Catholic parishes comply quickly and stop singing altogether at the Introit, Offertory and Communion.
C. Most Catholic parishes ignore the change in legislation, except when the bishop or other prelates are around.

I would answer A is least likely to happen. Musicians may regret what B does to their employment opportunities.

Cardinal X is elected Supreme Pontiff

CARDINAL X!



They have GOT to stop letting that guy get through security.

I don't think it's that simple.

Many places would do A, while being angry about it and writing letters to the editor of NCR.

Some of the rebellious places with pastors who feel untouchable would do C.

The lazy places that don't like to sing and usually take the path of least resistance would do B.

There's not one scenario. But when the new ICEL texts were rolled out, many people predicted that C would happen. The reality is A is happening in 95% of places, with the accompanying grumbling.

If the texts with music are considered optional, and yet the texts without music are not considered optional, we have yet another example of post-conciliar low mass mentality, do we not?

Just a thought. I feel most beleaguered bishops and pastors are trapped in this mindset. Because its easy and safe to stay there. Beautiful liturgy takes work and meets resistance from all levels, notably higher levels.

"The people don't want sacred music/ aren't ready for it" canard is false for the majority of the laity. When the sung prayers are introduced over time and with great beauty, they resonate with ordinary Catholics like us.

The pressure to stay away from sacred music comes, in the greatest part, from the upper management, and not from the faithful. Many seminarians and priests- even bishops- who pursue beauty and tradition in the sacred liturgy are shunned or considered eccentric by their peers. They are encouraged to keep quiet about their desire to give God excellent and thoroughly Catholic worship.

Pray for bishops. Pray for pastors. Pray for discouraged priests and seminarians.

You forgot option D: people AND prelates and clergy ignore the legislation...
just like they currently PRESUME with groundless authority to 'forbid' Latin and chant (in Latin OR English) in their parishes and dioceses in contravention and disobedience to Vatican II and successive popes.

E. Some bishop sends a dubium to the Holy See asking whether the current practice may be preserved on the grounds of long-standing custom, and is told yes. A few parishes adopt the propers, most don't.

Carl D -
You present likely results: the avoidance of those dire results is to take time and patience, skilled and determined paedagogy to get congregations to sing chants of moderate difficulty, Fr Columba's English arrangements of the Gregorian masses are quite well done, and should (OUGHT TO BE) taught to congregations. They are, most of them, not at all difficult and would make a congregation proud to have learnt it. Fr Comumba's setting (English) of Mass XII (Pater cuncta) is not at all difficult and could be learnt by congregation in a few weeks. All of Fr Columba'a masses can be downoaded, or had from the Scholar's Shop at St Meinrad's Archabbey. He has done most of the 18 complete Gregorian mass cycles in the LU or GRAUALE. He also has a large number of propers which in soon to be published by ocp

I should add - that despite what some will say - I will lay bitcons (see what I did there?) that Mary Jane would not quit, storm out, divide the parish, or whatever else. She'd probably say "Oh, ok Father" and start using it.

I think you overstate the fact that this would change their conception of what liturgy is about. We're already almost there. They've been talking about propers at NPM conventions for years now. Everyone knows that they exist, the questions that keep arising are how to use them with congregational participation and whether they have inherent value. Well a pronouncement to use them makes the second question irrelevant and forcing them to explore answers the first.

Really, many cathedrals are and have been for years using propers - by Tietze, James Bierry, whomever. And I've seen more and more parishes following the lead. When I look at other people's music plans, I'll see people picking Haas's "The Lord is my light and my Salvation" for Communion on Lent III. That's one of the propers from the Graduale Simplex.

There's already a movement towards it - the movement could use the final push.

And it wouldn't be some giant corpus of new music any more than picking a responsorial psalm every week is.

Of course there's always the Rossini propers ....

Oh I'll never share that. Not on a public forum.

Slightly off from where this thread has headed but I want to get back to something said by teachermom24. I haven't figured out how to quote other posts the "cool way" so I'll just do it this way...

teachermom24 said, "I am investing in my three teens right now who are receiving an education in sacred music, and know they will widen the circle further, perhaps just with their own children but, please God, even beyond." To that I say, Amen!

Part of the resistance of the PIPs is simply from unfamiliarity (lack of exposure to Latin and modal music). But we can do a lot in our own little "domestic churches". I'm planning to incorporate some simple chant into our family's nighttime prayer routine. That's not going to change the world of Catholic liturgical music, but it should result in a couple more Catholics who aren't freaked out by chant.

Today's kids are tomorrow's PIPs (ok yes, they're today's PIPs too, but they're too young to complain to Fr. if they don' like the music, haha). What I'm getting at is that if "all" a DM can do is bring entrance and communion antiphons to their parish, that's still a worthy endeavor. Sure, it's not the goal or the ideal, but just think of it as your way of getting that music into the ears- and souls- of the kids there. Maybe even one day a few of those kids will be the DM's. The revolution is happening... it's just in baby steps!

Haha, PaixGioiaAmor! Come to think of it, my 10 yr old complained about the music at a Life Teen Mass we went to ("Mom, this doesn't sound like church!").