@a_f_hawkins

Where in the Mass was the "customary" motet?

Here in England the Customary Motet was after the Offertory Proper, and before or after the Communion Proper, my local Parish OF hidden down a back road on the wrong side of the Railway line still has this custom that has survived all the liturgical changes and 3 parish priests.

'...wrong side...'

The Oxford movement and the Anglo-Catholic revival had some of their greatest original successes on 'the wrong side of the tracks'. Truth and Beauty sometimes have a strong appeal to those who have little else.

As long as PBC II has all the Mass settings and all the Credos, but I think a congregation is perfectly capable of learning most of the Communion antiphons and even the Introits over a period of years, not perfectly of course, but enough to sing or hum along in the pews. The Communion antiphon is obviously the most accessible, especially if it's repeated with verses every Sunday. Those melodies are contagious, and the Introits just seep into your soul. You can't help but learn them over the years.

For example 'Primum quaerite' for this coming Sunday--- how hard is this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKilHsqkOmE

I agree with Ben. The PBC and a hymnal. Save the propers for the choir and schola.

But a "hymnal" puts forth a philosophy that hymns is the main thing we should be singing when in reality it is the LAST option of what should be sung at the Mass.

I don't necessarily agree. Hymn singing in general is part of the Christian patrimony. Our ancestors in the faith have sung hymns and spiritual canticle and psalms from the beginning. Beside the fact that many hymns are based on the psalms, and other scripture (the entire Calvinist/Reform tradition of singing is based entirely on the psalter).

I may not have been clear about our situation - I apologize. Our congregation sings the ordinary, as well as the dialogue. Why not add a processional or recessional hymn every once in a while?

moderntrad:

The point I am making is that we have 'lost' our patrimony of chant which SHOULD have the pride of place. Right now, hymns have pride of place and our job is to educate the Masses (pun inteneded) about what is the proper music for the liturgy.

Hymns are a good thing, they just should not dominate the place of the Propers.

Regarding the hypothetical "ideal worship aids" in every Catholic pew, I offer yet another option: the 1940 Hymnal and the Mass and Vespers with Gregorian Chant, edited by the Monks of Solesmes and printed in 1957 which is available for download on the CMAA website.

This spectacular Missal is currently available in print in French/Latin only, because, as we all know, the traditionalist movement is stronger and more vibrant in France than in any other place in the world. I would submit that the French traditionalists participate in the liturgy with a quality and fervor that is second to none---one only has to listen to any recording of an EF Mass sung in France to realize this immediately.

This Missal, which was talked about on this forum in 2011 and called by the eminent commentators there "the greatest book in the world", is a prime example of why the French liturgical life is so strong and how that same energy and participation can be made alive here in America as well. This book contains the following: All the Masses and Vespers, all the responses, all the readings, all the psalm tones for Sunday Vespers, all the mass settings, all the antiphons, AND, this is my personal favorite feature: the Gregorian notation for all the propers of every Sunday and feast day Mass.

This book is the fulfillment and actualization of the early Liturgical Movement and Vatican II's call to teach the people to sing and say in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them, and I would argue that the question is not whether we should put these propers in a missal for those who want them, but why wouldn't we. Why would we possibly not give the people to see and hold in their hands the most beautiful sung prayers in the Roman liturgy?

For several years I've printed the Introit and Communion antiphons every Sunday in our handout, along with the jubilus of the Alleluia, and I do that because I remember my Benedictine monk friend telling me once that the Introit was meant to be sung by the people as the entrance antiphon, and Dom Johnner, in his book on the Vatican Graduale, points out that many of the Communion antiphons are very ancient and were sung by the Christians in the catacombs as Communion was distributed so I believe it's very important to begin in some small way the process of returning those antiphons to the people. As for the Alleluia, I just think the notation is graphically so beautiful and intriguing, that I want the people to see it and ponder it. Whether it will ever happen that the people will sing either the Introit or Communion antiphons on a wide scale is probably not possible in our lifetimes, but putting the music in the people's hands is the first step.

Of course we know that not everyone is going to sing them, and that most people and congregations are not capable of ever reaching that elusive "third degree of participation" (cf. De Musica Sacra), but we also know that there will be some people who, if given the opportunity, will be entranced by all those square notes and squiggles and will be called to deepen their participation in the Eucharistic celebration precisely because we opened a door for them and helped unlock the mysteries of chant. People of all types will appreciate having the notation regardless of whether they actually sing it, but having the notation in front of them helps them reach a deeper comprehension and participation in the Mass, if only because they'll learn on their own internally to follow in some way the words and melodies.

The sung Roman liturgy is the greatest tool of evangelization the Church has, so we should if possible offer some parts of this Missal to the laity and thereby open up for them to the fullest possible extent participation in the liturgical life of the EF.

Sometimes with these conversations, one is driven to despair, and longs to say with Queen Elizabeth I: "There is one Jesus Christ, there is one Faith. The rest is dispute about trifles".

JulieColl....you bring a lot to this group. Thank you!

Thanks so much for the kind words, Noel! Since I can't move to France, I'm trying to bring a bit of French traditional Catholicism to my own corner of the Church. I've been experimenting with the online Mass and Vespers with Gregorian Chant and came up with a booklet for this coming Sunday.

'Both false and uncharitable'

Indeed! -
'Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.'

A non-Catholic Christian who has more love and charity than a Catholic is, I think, in that aspect, more Catholic (certainly more Christian) than a Catholic who hasn't much of either. One of the gravest dangers in having the Whole Truth is spiritual pride, and spiritual snobbery, in having it. No one ever 'looked up to' someone who was 'looking down on' him.

What's hilarious to me is that in the midst of all the well-deserved praise The Hymnal 1940 receives from Catholic church musicians, among what we might call "ultraconservative" Episcopalian church musicians (among whom I count a few as personal friends), I've often heard IT described as the "modern" hymnal, as opposed to "you know...the good ol' Hymnal 1916!" ;-)

Gaudete in Domino Semper!

I love The English Hymnal. If it were still in print for a decent price, I would buy them for the parish, out of my own pocket, immediately.

You may not be trying to be uncharitable, but your choice of words pursues an illusory clarity at the expense of charity (I am talking words here, not you). The Church treats Calvinist congregations as Christian congregations, not as pagan gatherings. Your erstwhile clarity is not that of the Church, but a personal interpretation.

In this country (I'm writing from California, within the USA) Eastern Rite priests don't marry.

Priests may never marry. However, married men are welcome at our seminary and can be ordained as priests in the USA.

An interesting assertion, Matthew - but (I ask genuinely), is it accurate? I'm thinking about the old debates over Anglican orders. If an Anglican priest intends what the church does is his eucharist valid? Accepting your statement at face value one could be forgiven for concluding in the affirmative. However, very, very few Catholics would agree that it was so.

For most of my life I had no doubts at all about the validity of Anglican orders and sacraments, and deeply and sincerely believed that 'the Romans' did not have a monopoly on the Catholic faith. The events of the last fifty years have disabused me of any such certitude. It is quite likely that some of these orders are valid, while most are not - this owing to the impeccable ordination lineages enjoyed by some, but not by the greater majority. However, valid or not, there is no question any more that the Anglican church has lost any credibility it ever had of being in the same class as Rome and Orthodoxy. It has become (at least as far as the highest leadership is concerned) an entirely self-referential, idiosyncratic, institution.

to make the Catholic Mass "more acceptable to Protestants,"

That's like serving Vegan hot dogs, right?

This explains the NO.

Some do have valid orders. There was an Episcopal priest here years ago who had himself re-ordained by an Orthodox bishop in Syria. Why would an Orthodox bishop do this? Maybe to poke a finger in the eye of the Latins. Who knows? Then there are from time to time, schismatic Latin bishops who create ordination lines - wasn't there a Vietnamese bishop who did this years ago?

to make the Catholic Mass "more acceptable to Protestants,"

Right, Msgr. Bugnini never said that, though. Not sure where the quotation marks are coming from.

if we read Anglicanorum Coetibus, the permission to use this form isn't widespread among those not already accustomed to its use. [...] the fact that the Hymnal 1940 is the music of the Ordinariate doesn't mean that it can be licitly used elsewhere, willy-nilly.

Chris, if memory serves, the Holy Father had hoped for some mutual enrichment, no? Also, I this it is difficult to make the assertion that you're making, and unnecessary to make those burdens on yourself. The "Catholic" hymnals in the pews have no more ecclesiastical approbation than the '40. There has yet to be a document handed down from on high stating that "these are the Catholic hymns and hymnals." Would that they had done that long before the council, then we might not be in the trouble in which we find ourselves today. But that will never happen. I truly find it difficult to find credible the assertion that hymns which express the timeless truths of the Church are "foreign" to Roman Catholicism, just because they were compiled by those outside of The Faith.

Because the '40 is, in many ways, superior (musically, lyrically, and poetically) to many "Catholic" hymnals in the pews, and is used by a Use of the Roman Rite is exactly why I believe that it should be used in a Roman parish. Why should we not take what is good and right and beautiful, simply because protestants also saw it as good and right and beautiful, and decided to make it a part of their worship?

It seems that the issue that you have with the '40 is that the title page says that it is the hymnal of the PECUSA. How would you feel if it were republished with a title page that reads "The Hymnal of the Traditional Catholic Church?" Is that really the issue? Because hardly any of the contents can be criticized for being otherwise.

Julie,

With mutual enrichment, one must be properly attentive to what has the potentiality to enrich. Given the 7-course meal which is Anglican music, it is tempting to want to include it within either the ecumenically reformed rite or within the traditional Roman Rite. If one could be sure that importing such (unarguably) good material wouldn't bring along the bad stuff (heretical theology, cesaropapism, the need to lop heads off statues, wymynpriests .....) then we would only need to overcome the requirement of Pius X that all the music sung during the Mass be in the Latin language. Beati Quorum Via of Sir Charles V. Stanford would be near the top of the list of choral pieces to admit, since it already attains the Latin threshold. Unfortunately, with music and texts written by heretics, if we accept the nose of the elephant, the rest of the animal comes under the tent.

I happily attend every Mass in the Rite of Blessed Paul VI which doesn't use altar girls, un-necessary ministers of Holy Communion, microphones, inclusive language, or semi-Pelagian theology; which uses the Latin language in something other than a penitential character, gives Latin pride of place, and permits us to face God together, to foster vocations to the priesthood, and the time to adore God on our knees.

I'd rather 3 Hymns by Charles Wesley than 2,000 by William Cardinal O'Connell any day.

Salieri

You should have included a trigger warning. Now I've recovered the memories of the years of intoning Himself's O Holy Name hymn every second Sunday of the Month as the HNS marched in procession....

Modern Trad,

I acknowledge that truth is truth is truth. Happily. Forthrightly.

How much horse dung will you happily consume when it is mixed with your grandmother's traditional brownie recipe? (This isn't meant as a dismissal of your observation at all, but rather a challenge to see that while truth is truth -- and your grandmother's traditional brownie recipe is excellent -- when elements which are foreign to it are introduced, we must weigh carefully the content. If you prefer a less graphic example, how much sugar can we substitute for salt in .... pick your recipe... before what looks like it's supposed to doesn't taste right? Remember that your body treats tofu like tofu and turkey like turkey, so tofurkey isn't the same as turkey.)