"Throughout" meaning?

Playing almost continuously? I would think that is at least frowned upon, if not strictly illicit.

The elevation is the music played after the consecration, I think. There is to be no music of any sort from the beginning of the words of institution until after the elevation of the Blood, so it would obviously go after that.

The playing was not "continuous" but used where the parts of the Mass are roughly. Again, it's Low Mass, the music need not have anything to do with the liturgy whatsoever. You can sing "Happy Birthday" while banging on a tamborine, and if no one's knees collapse from kneeling through the whole thing, you're good.

It's my understanding that "Tra le" forbade, among almost anything else good, the use of the French organ Mass. Hence why I pretend that document was never released; I like having women in choirs.

However, there are times when the organist should play, loudly--like at the 20-minute mark in a sermon.

No?

For a quick overview of the "Organ Mass", which should suffice until someone better informed comes along:

It is a suite of music designed to be played during Mass. It would alternate with the singing of the choir on the ordinary, ie. Kyrie - couplet - Kyrie - couplet - Christe - couplet - Kyrie - couplet - Kyrie. It included the movements (brackets indicate movements not present in all traditions) [introit] Kyrie Gloria [post-epistle] [Credo] Offertory Sanctus Elevation Agnus Dei [Communion] [Deo Gracias]. This was especially common in the French and Italian Baroque, but examples exist in even the late French Romantic period (Vierne's Messe Basse). This would conflict with the liturgical reforms of the early 20th century (not to be confused with Bugnini's work) which asked parishes to favor a "dialog" style of Mass where the congregation recites the responses with the servers. And at High Mass, the proper texts (of both the proper and ordinary) must be sung, so that too excludes the Organ Mass.

Thank you all for the responses. I did some homework, too; here's what Pius XII had to say about it (9/3/58 Instruction, Para. 29):

"Furthermore, it should be noted that if there is the practice in some places of playing the organ during a read Mass, and if, after stopping this practice, the faithful would participate either with common prayers or with singing, then it is necessary to disapprove the uninterrupted playing of the organ.....Such instruments must therefore remain silent: a) After the priest celebrant has reached the altar until the Offertory; b) From the first veses before the Preface up to and including the Sanctus; c) Where the custom exists, from the Consecration up to the Pater Noster; d) from the Lord's prayer up to the Agnus Dei inclusive; during the Confiteor before the people's Communion; while the Post-communion prayer is being said; and while the Blessing is being given at the end of the Mass."

That means that the only remaining approved places are 1) during the Offertory, 2) between the Sanctus and Elevation, and 3) during the Communion of the faithful.

This is legislation, not opinion, of the Pope.

Frescobaldi also wrote organ Masses for Venice, so it's not just French. His elevation sonatas are wonderful. It's such a wonderful tradition to have instrumental music for a short period to ponder the miracle.

so it's sin if I play throughout the mass, it's sin if I kill someone

I think it's a lesser sin to strangle a "crow" singer than to play during the Elevation. Just an opinion, not informed by Moral Theo 101, or anything...

So true. But you do realize we easterners don't accept mortal and venial distinctions. That's too scholastic for us. Sin is sin. :-)

The music for many of the French organ masses is really beautiful. I find parts of those compositions useful to play at non-singing/reading times during the mass. I know the concept behind these masses was understood in France, but does seem foreign to us in the U.S. However, I do have an organ stop, lovingly referred to as the "mixture horribilis III" that works well to drown out noxious singing. When needed, I can create my own "organ mass" with it.
;-)

Dear all,

Listening to John Grew's fine recording available on the Naxos Library (Atma Label) of de Grigny's organ book, which contains versets for both Mass (Mass IV Cunctipotens-feasts of Apostles, Gr. Triplum p. 725) and principal office hymns (Veni creator, Pange lingua (only enough verses for Tantum ergo, interestingly), Verbum supernum, and Ave maris stella), and a lengthy Offertory.

What no one seems to have mentioned is that liturgical organ verses were played in place of alternate verses of Ordinary chants when there was no polyphonic vocal music (eg, Kyire I, III, Christe II, Kyire IV, VI, Et in terra, Benedicimus te, etc). Either played or sung, "alternatim" liturgical music was a widespread practice that significantly predated the Council of Trent (to understate it more than a little!). This was true as much for the Magnificat and Office Hymns, Te Deum, etc. A modern performance at N.D. de Paris of an Alternatim Te Deum can be found at : https://youtu.be/ohDqL6pjpjY

It seems like books like de Grigny's, Couperin's 2, Nivers, the Montréal Organ Book, etc. potentially provided music for masses and offices in the calendar when a polyphonic choir was less likely to be present, but some measure of solemnity and festivity was desired nonetheless. The style of writing also frequently mimics vocal polyphony. Most of the time, this organ music was improvised, hence the wealth of 16th and 17th c. treatises devoted to improvising polyphony at the organ. It allows the "hearing" of Mass to make more sense.

Elevation pieces make more sense remembering that the Elevation served for the minimum obligatory attendance at Mass for hundreds of years, and was held as a moment of talismanic awe by all strata of laity. It's also where I understand we get the term "hocus pocus" from—Hoc est corpus meus.

It would be an interesting feat of rubrical acrobatics to recocile alternatim organ playing with Vatican II's "full comprehension" or however it's worded. Worth doing though, even if all you get to do is pause the CD and sing the verses yourself in between.

SEVEN YEARS

'Tis seven long years since last I...

So... Seven Years Later...
Dad29, did you find out exactly what the priest had in mind? What was the result?

The priest in question was a native of France; he had a number of other ideas about the organ--like, for instance, that the organ should play (near-) continuously: as a prelude to the sermon, during the entire Canon (except the Consecration) and throughout the communion of the faithful, stopping only for the Last Blessing. (EF Mass)

He was also of the opinion that the 1962 Rite was not ancient enough; he preferred the pre-Pius XII Holy Week rituals. He also made his own 'calls' on what Mass would be said on a Sunday, substituting (e.g.) the church's saint's name-day Mass (& Propers) for the Sunday's Propers--usually 2-3 days before the Sunday in question.

He was, in short, the anti-Weakland Weaklandite, making up the rules as he went along.

Purple, Bruce?

Dad29, the difference is, he has tradition on his side, though the propers should be arranged well in advance. I really can’t argue with his view on the organ...

One wonders how the organ went from support and decoration during mass to soundtrack during mass. Guess it depends on one's idea of what constitutes support and decoration.
There are beautiful (small "t") traditions that crept their way into larger practice and still ended up being illicit. Nothing new there.

Personally, I'm grateful for the chance to review this topic and have access to more examples of scores. I'd love to see more of them and hear the compositions in a concert setting. I bet there's a lot of gloriousness.

I've been wondering what I can say that would be useful in this thread. The following may be, at least to some. The 'organ mass' is not a thing, but several different things that have been predominant, not only in Frankreich, but elsewhere, for quite a few centuries (as far back as the mid- XVth century, if not the late XIVth) up until very recent times. The baroque organ mass, as exemplified by Couperin and de Grigny, who were the flower of the French baroque organ school, was typified by alternation between choir and organ in, basically, an antiphonal idiom. (Many here, of course, will already have known these things.) Instead of verse by verse plainchant vs. choral polyphony, it was chant vs. organ versets. In earlier times the versets either quoted or were based motivically on the plainchant. In later times the sacred melos was less and less a feature of the organ versets. Though there is much literature about this practice, and considerable detail and legislation about it in various contemporary customaries, I still have but a vague notion of how this 'played out' in an actual mass or office. A gloria could well take twenty minutes by Couperin's time, as could a magnificat or benedictus. Did the ritual action continue whilst these alternatim parts of mass and office were performed simulataneously? Or did it wait? Perhaps someone here can clear this up? For this, the 'early' organ mass, the parts of the mass treated to alternatim performance were the ordinary, plus an offertoire. For the office, the canticles for matins and vespers, and, often, the office hymns, were treated to this method of performance.

This early 'organ mass' was quite a different species from that of the late XIXth and early XXth centuries. Here, there is no alternation of chant or ritual text vs. organ, but pure organ pieces labeled introit, offertoire, elevation, sortie, etc., which were played over the ritual action as it unfolded. The best of these, such as those of the semi-mystic Tournemire (which are, indeed, amongst the most inspired of all organ literature), were based motivically on the plainchant propers. The worst of them are organ pieces with no relation to cantus firmus, and vary greatly in their aptness to accompany the sacred ritual action of the mass.

Neither of the above species of 'organ mass' could in any way be compatible with the theology and ideal praxis of the mass as (wisely, I should say!) was envisioned by the IInd Vatican Council. It would, for some of us, be enlightening, and, possibly, even spiritually rewarding to 're-enact' such an 'organ mass' of either or both species, but one could not with any acuity contemplate reviving such a mass for congregations of our time.

The pieces contained in the baroque and early XXth century varieties of organ mass are, to be sure, useful (and apt) for to grace our modern masses at those times at which the organ might reasonably ornament moments of lull in the ritual action. Indeed, many of these pieces are highly appropriate for such use, and, as well, for voluntaries and ludes. But, given our truer theology of the mass, and our enlightened understanding of the inalienable manner of participation by the various orders of persons, clerks, choir, schola, cantor, people, which is essential to the proper celebration of the Sacred Mysteries, one could hardly envision playing them in that manner originally conceived for them.

There was a time, once upon a time, when there was no hurry to finish the mass and rush to do things on Sundays that are inherently non-sacred and non-spiritual. Fancy that! I heard from a Jewish friend that it is his family's custom to pray four hours on their Sabbath. Can you imagine?

I suspect playing chant-based organ settings during low masses was not any worse or better than the congregation absorbed in their rosaries. Those of us old enough remember that well. French organ masses reflect a different time, culture, and place not influenced by American Irish practices. As for the beautiful music in those organ masses, it is still worthy of use and beats the "H" out of what is heard in too many American parishes.

"Well, yes; and a lot of that "VII" stuff was foreshadowed by the reforms of Pius X and Pius XII; thus the prohibitions they issued."

That is the consequence of change, no matter how well intentioned. If you mess with it in the first place, it becomes easier for someone else down the road to do the same.

That is the consequence of change, no matter how well intentioned. If you mess with it in the first place, it becomes easier for someone else down the road to do the same.

Change is inevitable. It can either be accidental or purposeful, positive or negative. Prayer, theological reflection, and a respect for both the tradition and the needs of contemporary people are more useful than rules of thumb.

Charles... you are sounding like a traddie. Lol

I do, and do so sincerely, appreciate Charles' estimation of the abuses of power in 'the West' as opposed to 'the East'. The West, with varying degrees of success, saw the Church in centuries of struggle to free itself of secular control, from the very imperial entanglements which it gladly profited from from Constantine's time on, from royal and baronial investiture and such, add to that a mountain of spiritual and political corruption which were directly responsible for the Reformation, has finally (except for our modern example of troubles regarding China's State Catholic Church - a rather Byzantine phenomenon!) freed itself from secular powers and strives (with varying success) to be a purely spiritual entity, though it does not shrink from making its rightful voice heard in the political arena. The East, on the other hand, while one grants the plusses of Charles' argument, has consistently from classical times till now cozied up with emperor and state. It has done this with both basileus and tsar, and even, when 'profitable', with sultan, and continues this tradition of being an arm of the state (a rather Church of Englandish phenomenon) with modern rulers such as the Russian de facto tsar and others. Charles could likely enumerate better than any of us just how often doctrine was decided upon by caesar. So, it seems to me that neither east nor west can emerge from church-state relations, or sacred-secular interests, with anywhere near a four point average.

Salient points, Charles.
True, everything you say about the early Church in the west. Indeed, for how many centuries did The Church base its political legitimacy on the forged 'donation of Constantine'? When the imperium withered away the situation was, as you underline, quite different, even unique. The post-classical Holy Roman emperors in the west, and, later, the emergent kings, were envisioned and blessed by the Church as secular powers which would defend the Church, protect it. These rulers all gladly accepted the blessing of the Church as a sign of their own legitimacy - and, coveted Romanitas. As history unfolded this tacit relationship came more and more unraveled until the secular powers were in the political ascendancy. This unravelment was legitimised in 1648 when, at Thirty Year's War's end, all agreed that the religious affiliation of a populace, within political boundaries, would be that of the ruler who, to greater and lesser degrees, believed what he or she believed because it was in his or her political and dynastic interests. Further, even in Catholic lands, the Church was not an unhindered victor. Louis XIV famously held Rome in contempt and championed the Gallicanism and anti-Roman sentiment which was rampant in his lands. The Kings of Spain (of all places) made it clear that they could go the way of England unless they were granted generous privileges. Then there were the rapacious Josephine reforms in Habsburg lands. And, so it was elsewhere. It might be put forth that the Catholic Church has not emerged scot free of the state until the last century, when the last vestiges of ancien regimes were booted out (thanks largely to that pompous Presbyterian twit, Woodrow Wilson). As for the east today? I doubt that anyone is in any doubt that Metropolitan Kiril wouldn't think of offending his 'tsar'. And elsewhere, they 'don't rock the boat'.

A Postscript to the above -
Not even now is the Church (Catholic or otherwise) scot free of varying degrees of control or freedom in large parts even of 'the West', the 'Free World'. The official 'secularism' of the French state staunchly and aggressively limits the freedom with which religious persons (of any faith) can publicly express their faith. The same is true of 'Catholic' Mexico and other parts of the Spanish world. In England, ironically, the Catholic Church (I think) is rather a free agent, but the state church is now nothing more than an agent of Westminster, which demanded and finally got priestesses and bishopenes. In our own country we daily are confronted with state interference in the free exercise of religion, particularly in medical, parental, and pro-creative matters. Where, one might ask, is there a land which affords the absolute freedom of expression of religious people? Is there such? It is the Church, really, which birthed Western civilisation, nurtured it intellectually and morally, once was the sign of state legitimacy, and which now is being shoved aside, disowned, like an embarrassing relation. We of the West are the only civilisation in history which has deliberately and with a vengeance committed institutional, moral, and intellectual suicide.

http://imslp.org/wiki/Requiem_für_die_Orgel,_S.266_(Liszt,_Franz)

Franz Liszt (1811-1886)
Requiem für die Orgel (S.266) (1883)
1. Requiem
2. Dies Irae
3. Recordare Pie Jesu!
4. Sanctus
5. Benedictus
6. Agnus dei
7. Postludium

I have been having difficulty with block quote, on and off, for a couple of days. Sometimes it works, sometimes it does nothing.

Jackson, I often use parts of the Andre Raison organ masses. Raison is not as appreciated as I think he deserves to be.

I am not familiar with Fetis. Will look into his works.