It matters. Everything matters!

I suggest this comment of MJO become a separate discussion, since it is a matter of extreme importance and it is not really an All Souls Day issue.

How often we've seen comments on the Forum that "anything goes" before the opening sign of the cross at weddings because "it's not part of the Mass." Nonsense.

Similarly "anything goes" after the "Ite missa est," since "it's not part of the Mass." Again, nonsense.

Regarding the final hymn, if there is anything in the Mass, as it is celebrated in the USA, which has risen to the level of an established custom, it is that. With more than 60 years of continuous use and with the tacit approval of every diocesan bishop in office during that length of time, the final hymn is truly a custom. It is part of the Mass in the USA.

Replacing a solid recessional hymn with organ music is not a huge victory.

As recently mentioned elsewhere, most threads here mutate with frequency, and do so with the support of most observers who post. I have no problem with that.
However I have to wonder if this thread, so subjective and "easy" is actually serving up a subtext of rigorist, and somewhat intolerant attitude in which the message actually being delivered publicly actually argues against one of the two coin sides of being "catholic."
I know my friend MJM does not employ the object "victory" in its harshest sense, but the word does suggest that such a decision as he describes represents some sort of tactical objective, rather than a choice between two or more valid and artful options for a liturgical moment.
In a thread such as this, I applaud my California colleague, Sam, for providing the readership positive reportage (too "O'Reilly?) of progress in two churches in the East Bay, simple acknowledgements of what they really are-worthy celebrations of worship.
Polemics can show up in any thread at any time, let 'em burn on. I just hope that we can distinguish between demonstration and disputation.

A hymn and a postlude are both unnecessary.

Quite, meditative music serves the liturgy and the people best to keep them in a state of prayer. They ARE (and should continue to be) in the presence of God until they exit through the front doors. Of course, God should go with them too out the doors, but usually when they hit the vestibule, they are into all kinds of nonsense already. What happened to the sense of the sacred. I remember as a child that when I entered the doors of the church, I wasn't thinking or talking anything but the holy presence of the Almighty. What happened to THAT?

Part of the problem with the vestibule is that it has become a 'fellowship' area. PHOEY! That is not a Catholic mentality for our tradition and theology of the vestibule.

If it's Christmas or Easter, OK, I like a good postlude. If it's a really good hymn (Joy to the World on Christmas day) OK, that is good... but then give me the big festive organ postlude with the zimbelstern after the fact.

Lent, ditch both. Give them silence... and me too. Mix it up. We don't need music all the time everywhere.

I only do a postlude because my contract says I have to :-/ It's especially annoying when we also do a closing hymn every Sunday, feels like overkill.

I spend a lot of time looking for and practicing new postlude music, but mainly because I know I can recycle it for later use. It gets tiring honestly, and I wonder if the preference for the recessional hymn (at least at my own church) originated with tired musicians who didn't want to prepare something extra.

When I see people celebrating that their first change in a new parish is doing away with the recessional hymn from a 4 hymn sandwich, I think they're going about it backwards. If people don't want to lose any hymns by introducing the antiphons, leave the recessional hymn! Work at replacing the Offertory and Communion with the propers.

I like this idea. No one, and I mean no one at my church sings the Communion hymn anyway.

I only do a postlude because my contract says I have to :-/ It's especially annoying when we also do a closing hymn every Sunday, feels like overkill.

It is overkill, you're right. Having essentially two musical selections at the end is not necessary: it would be better to have one or the other as a requirement, and then possibly include the other at the discretion of the DM.

No one, and I mean no one at my church sings the Communion hymn anyway.

Another organist at my church and I were having this exact discussion this weekend. She stated something to the effect of "...nobody has their Missalettes with them when they line up for Communion..." and I agreed with her assessment, and brought up singing the Communion Proper (with Communion hymn afterward, as indicated in the GIRM). That's a discussion I need to have with Fr. though.

For me having a postlude after the final hymn serves the function of preventing applause breaking out

Is your organist that bad, or that loud?

Is your organist that bad, or that loud?

lol. No - the organists are great. But people, with the best intentions in the world, tend to behave as if they were an audience at a concert, so when the singing is finished, they think they should applaud. It only takes one to start it, then others join in out of social constraint. We are trying to make sure that this behaviour does not become a settled habit. Hence the usefulness of the postlude.

In the proverbial grand scheme, perhaps this applause is a relatively minor but well-intended lapse of judgment. At least, one should be pleased to take some satisfaction in this evidence that the people (%50?! - how impressive!) appreciate the hymn and/or the voluntary - that it made them joyful. It is, I think, a rare Catholic parish at which such popular approbation is forthcoming. Perhaps, if you made an announcement before mass for several weeks to the effect that you are very honoured and deeply touched by their applause, but that their mere presence is sufficient appreciation, and applause, though, is really not appropriate at or after the mass, because it is all about and in honour of the glory of God. You are far more fortunate than the typical parish at which no one listens and no one really appreciates or cares about the efforts of their musicians. Be thankful. Be appreciative of well-meant expressions. Tactfully and appreciatively suggest that applause is not necessary. (I myself in such a situation would think nothing of it and be thankful that my final offering of music to God as a final ornament to the mass made them happy, and that they shared their happiness with me in this way as they left. True, they could have come to the organ and told you with words that you were appreciated, but they did this instead. I wouldn't worry about it. They know it's all for the glory of God and that rare and beautiful things happen in his house.)

Applause at Mass is to be avoided, it shows people are at an entertainment, they should be worshiping God. This is a slippery slope that leads to the Gospel of Prosperity i.e. feel good, give the pastor more than you can afford, and see your bank balance grow. It needs pastoral action to educate the congregation.

We work solely for the priest.

!!!???

What callous and soul-less liturgical real-politic! True, the priest is our immediate superior, who may or may not as often 'rule us' with naked power as he does genuine authority. (As I've said elsewhere, authority to contradict the Church's wishes and teachings does not exist - the raw power to do so does, and is very often shamelessly used.) I work for and serve the Church, and, as a professional Church Musician strive to fulfill with my talent the express wishes of the Church and to do so with the finest music performed well. The priest, who pays my salary may complicate and even obstruct both my efforts and the Church's precepts. I obey him, not because I work for him (I work only for God and the Church), but because he pays my salary and may cause me existential difficulties if I don't. But, 'work for the priest'? This is nice work if the priest is liturgically and culturally nice; it may be onerous if he isn't. We most emphatically do not 'work solely for the priest'. We are thankful if he is a good one. We endure him if he isn't.

Church musicianship is very often an act of love. It has about it cultural, missionary, educational, spiritual, and worshipful aspects. It is often appreciated. It is often not appreciated. Inside every true choirmaster and organist is something of a priest and something of a monk, as well as a musician. The genuine choirmaster often is a more conscientious custodian of liturgy and worship than some who are ordained into holy orders. Indeed, history has its share of great composers who were ordained. Yes, the priest pays the salary, but it is not for him for whom we work. It is glorious, though, if he happens to desire what the Church desires and is pleased with our efforts at practicing what the Church desires. In such a case we are co-serving with one who governs with genuine authority, not with that raw power which all too often exceeds or contradicts what it was given authority to accomplish.

Yes, the priest pays the salary, but it is not for him for whom we work.

In Personae Christi

Priests who know and understand the liturgy are in harmony with musicians who understand and promote authentic liturgy. It is the dissenters who tear at the church. A priest who is in error is still the representative of Christ, whether we like it (or him) or not.

MJO

You are right. How he ACTS and who he IS are two completely different things. Liguori and Aquinas speak to the issue. The sins of the priest does not minimize the efficacy of the sacrament. God still respects their position of ordination despite what their personal life holds out to be. However, when D day comes, it will go less fortunate for those who mislead or devour the sheep, whether he be priest, bishop or pope.

http://www.stpeterslist.com/7334/the-path-to-hell-is-paved-with-the-skulls-of-bishops-8-quotes-and-sources/

If you want to keep your job, you had better behave like you work for the priest. If you want to do the right job, you must serve God and his Church. If you want to be effective, you had better figure out a way to do both.

One of the more profound statements, which surprises me that more have not thanked!

In every Sheep Attack the goal is for the evil people to convince the pastor that you are not working for him but against him.

melo

Your message is cryptic. Not sure what you are saying.

Priests who know and understand the liturgy are in harmony with musicians who understand and promote authentic liturgy. It is the dissenters who tear at the church. A priest who is in error is still the representative of Christ, whether we like it (or him) or not.

And I'm the cryptic one? The last platitude is a "Duh. Now can we solve the problem, Father?"
How do you tell the authentic priests from the dissenters, francis, do you have a program like at the ballgame? Do they wear badges? I don't have time to sort out all these big questions about who's real and who's posing. Nor can I spend much time anymore on whether Burke and Douthat have it right over Kaspar and HHF.
Sigh.
As far as the question at hand, one policy at one Mass out of ____ doesn't necessarily ratify the same solution at all of them in one's parish(es).