Using actual Latin Hymns at an actual Latin Mass - a taboo few dare to cross!
-
CCooze, it comes from the expectation of it being a musical liturgy...
And, you have to be against the Benedictus sung as a separate movement in order to oppose organ music at the same point. -
Fr. Kunz was one of the good guys. He stopped over for spanferkel a couple of years at our place, along with his comrade-in-arms priest (now also deceased) who had edited the galleys of Windswept House...Thanked by 1expeditus1
-
you have to be against the Benedictus sung as a separate movement in order to oppose organ music at the same point
No, you don't. -
But what always seems strange is the habit of singing until the priest is where he's supposed to be, and then stopping.
And this is why hymns were not sung at Mass. And why the Propers, which are extended with verses as needed, were.
Changes intended to get people who never wanted to sing, to sing. Brilliant move! It's as successful as tithing! As we can all see, people are flcking to Mass each Sunday and the buildings can barely hold them...Thanked by 1dad29 -
If there is to be a prolonged silence for prayer, then it doesn’t make sense to sing the choral Benedictus. It is a musical filler, even if it is also required to be sung.
I would like to know why you think this is not the case. -
That's like saying that if I think sacred polyphony is appropriate, then I have to think that the organ needs to be playing as much as possible. Or if I don't want the extra organ stuffing then I couldn't possibly like polyphony or choral Masses.
The two things don't relate in that kind of way. It isn't one or the other; both or none. -
The organ is the only “thing” besides chant and polyphony mentioned in church documents. The Continental tradition, which has been picked up at least recently by Westminster Cathedral, treats the organ as another voice. So, yes, in the sung liturgy, the organ as a solo voice ought to be maximized, whereas it ought to be minimized when the voices, properly speaking, of the choir are chanting. The chants alternate with organ if appropriate and are unaccompanied. The organist then improvises on the chant during the gaps.
I think we see this very differently: your second sentence indicates that. It isn’t what we like or dislike per se. It is about what the music is doing at that moment and what should be going on in that moment. If it ought to be silent for worship of God present on the altar, then no music should be there. The split Benedictus is the only mandated exception, and that is purely practical.
It isn’t as if the organist is thougtless. He or she attentive to the chants that were sung or are about to be sung and the ritual action at the moment.Thanked by 1Ben -
But the Continental Traditions DOES included the organ accompanying the chant. Any polyphony that was composed with the intention of a Capella performance is performed without the organ, but chant is almost always accompanied. I think you are confused with the American Tradition that stipulates that, since Gregorian Chant was originally composed without accompaniment, it should NEVER be accompanied. This ignores the historical fact that the pipe organ (as an added breathing instrument) was introduced to the western Church SPECIFICALLY to accompany singing - at that time, Gregorian Chant. There was not yet any solo organ repertoire, and the only hymns ever sung were the Office Hymns chanted in Chapter Houses and Monasteries.
Polyphonic Mass settings, where the Sanctus/Benedictus were significantly longer, came along much later. Whether or not something else should be sung after the Elevation if the S/B was already sung before the Elevation is another question. I don't personally see a problem with it, but neither do I automatically equate that possibility with any need for the organ to be played at that time. But I do often wonder just how beautifully the French Organ Mass was, where virtually every silent part of the Mass had musical accompaniment, artistically and reverently performed, improvisation or not.
Nor do I mind periods of silence during the EF Mass. I do think they should be minimized between the Readings, though. -
Steve, sure. I do think that unaccompanied chant is best, and it is increasingly more common, even in France. The Graduale Triplex is largely responsible for that, I think.
-
I will freely admit that I grew up chanting with organ accompaniment. I was also involved in the organ building trade for 30+ years. While chant was not accompanied in the beginning, and it certainly can be performed that way now, it still IS the primary reason for the organ being the only approved instrument in the Liturgies. I am confident that it was used with chant, but that was before the printing press, and all Catholic musicians who played the organ knew the chant intimately, and had no need for printed music. Consider also that, when St. Pope Pius X began the reform of the Liturgy, chant accompaniment books were printed on every continent. The Church itself does not forbid organ accompaniment. I am opposed to any self proclaimed professional group, including esteemed academia, that makes pronouncements against accompanied chant. BTW, the total lack of accompanied chant at Colloquium is a major reason why I have not bothered to return since the one I attended in 2006.Thanked by 1noel jones, aago
-
Are there any groups that make pronouncements against accompanied chant?
-
I accompany chant. If anyone doesn't like it, they can get over it. The road that led them to my parish goes two ways.Thanked by 1ryand
-
I hope it's OK to sort of "revive" this thread 2 1/2 months later. There were a lot of things talked about in the replies but especially since it's an old thread I mainly want to respond to the original post, as well as a couple closely related points made.
I don't usually hear Latin hymns done. But of course I don't very often attend a Missa Cantata (aside from the ones which we do at my parish, at which we tend to not do any hymns at all) or Solemn High Mass, since I work for a regular diocesan (OF) parish. I understand that there is certainly room for different tastes/preferences with regards to hymns before and after Mass, but my personal opinion is that hymns don't belong at Mass. No, not that they're bad or necessarily inappropriate, but just that they are not literally proper to the Mass. As another poster said, they're technically only proper to the Divine Office (and other things I suppose, like Processions). I want to go to pains to state again that I do not think the practice is inherently bad by any means; but also, I am not a huge fan of the practice simply because I do not wish to promote any sort of practice which promotes the idea that some sort of congregational participation in hymns is essential to the Liturgy or that "understanding" is the only way to be able to participate in something - both of which vernacular hymns before and after Mass *can* do (and in today's Church, these sorts of ideas are *very* prevalent).
In any case, I think one or both of those are the primary reasons that Latin hymns aren't done even at EF Masses and the reasons why vernacular hymns are the norm. Another person posted regarding being able to "attract" more people to EF Masses, mentioning all sorts of things including insisting on male voices and some sort of stressing of congregational participation in the singing, and of course vernacular hymns. Well, I might be heretical or something and unwilling to face the "essential elements" of Sacrosanctum Concilium - I don't know - but I don't think it's that terrible of an idea to at the very least aim for certain concepts and certainly ideals in the EF Mass that used to be more widespread/common but are no longer so due to the events of the past 50 years. (Such as how to participate in the Liturgy - much different emphases in the OF than EF, the use of Latin, and just a general understanding of the Liturgy.) Of course my own understanding of such things very well may be flawed as well, so maybe all of my opinions/thoughts are flawed and not useful either. Ah well. Those are some of my thoughts. -
I couldn't agree with you more. The very idea that people should be able to find an intelligent, dignified and accessible way to participate in the EF by singing congregational vernacular hymns before and after Mass should be avoided at all costs. After all, this might possibly give Catholics the dangerous idea that their participation at Mass is supposed to be real and meaningful.
I believe that the only way to protect and promote the EF Latin Mass is to make it as ethereal and incomprehensible as possible. Furthermore, we should set up every kind of obstacle to prevent your average man, woman or child in the pew from engaging in this rite. So, in addition to forbidding vernacular hymns, I think the following ideas would also be helpful:
1) Announce to the people in advance that any kind of audible vocal response emanating from the pews is strictly verboten.
2) A culture should be created where only the two altar boys closest to the priest should say any response during Mass, and even those should be whispered and mumbled at the highest possible speed to prevent anyone from being able to comprehend anything that is said.
3) If there is to be a High Mass, I would strongly recommend either an all-male or all-female schola only so half the population in the congregation would immediately realize that any temptation to sing at Mass is completely inappropriate for half the human race.
4) Furthermore, as regards the use of the organ: At the Low Mass, the organ should be played as much as possible, esp. through the whole canon (except the Consecration) to further reinforce the idea that "assistance" at a Latin Mass is only a spectator event--- that the Low Mass is the "private devotional prayer of the priest and the role of the congregation ends at the sanctuary gate." At the High Mass, loud, somber organ playing should be encouraged at the processional and recessional events which will further discourage the Protestant idea that the people should dare to sing a syllable as the august (and hopefully, frowning) clerical assembly marches past.
5) Finally, at Christmas and Easter all seasonal vernacular hymns which would in any way evoke a feeling of joy or cheap emotional euphoria are to be strictly banned, lest the Liturgy be threatened by any vulgar human sentiment being experienced by the people.
We really should be far more diligent in showing our solidarity with the American sedevacantists who do such a marvelous job protecting Holy Mother Church by pretending that Vatican II, the early Liturgical Movement, Popes Pius X, XI and XII were all way off base (and were probably impostors) in attempting to get the people to no longer be the "mute, dumb and idle" spectators referred to by Pope Pius XI.
In closing, we must reinforce at every possible opportunity the idea that the only reasonable response to the excesses of Bugnini's liturgical reform is to go as far as possible to the opposite extreme and to teach the people that if they "assist" at the Latin Mass they must, like the children of the Victorian Age, be seen and not heard, and must vigorously resist any temptation to speak or sing in the EF liturgy.Thanked by 1expeditus1 -
In closing, we must reinforce at every possible opportunity the idea that the only reasonable response to the excesses of Bugnini's liturgical reform is to go as far as possible to the opposite extreme and to teach the people that if they "assist" at the Latin Mass they must, like the children of the Victorian Age, be seen and not heard, and must vigorously resist any temptation to speak or sing in the EF liturgy. (purple bold)
No purple. I am afraid the excesses of the liturgical reform were a predictable backlash against the status quo that existed before Vatican II. Things were rotten in Denmark well before the council.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
I'm sorry, but I totally disagree. Pope Pius XII wanted the congregation to participate more during ALL Masses. He wanted them to join with the altar servers in responses throughout the Mass, except for the Prayers at the foot of the Altar. I have no problem with this whatsoever. It is what I grew up with in the 1950s-60s in parochial school. At that time we DID have High Mass on a regular basis, even on some weekdays. All of us at the school were expected to join in on the Gregorian chant Ordinary, and one class was given the duty of chanting the Rev. Carlo Rossini Psalm Tone Propers.
The only rule on Latin music is that, at a High Mass EVERYTHING MUST be in Latin. It IS the "music of the Mass". OTOH any music played or sung at a Low Mass is just that - music AT Mass - NOT a part of the Mass. It may be in any language, and Latin is NOT ruled out.
As much as I would love that every Mass be the highest form of celebration, I don't see the Low Mass going away, probably ever. I would rather let the people participate in some music while the Priest celebrates than not.
Remember also the very strict directive during the Low Mass - that the music, played or sung, must never impede the progress of the Priest in his saying the Mass.
-
I totally agree with you, Steven. Please forgive my earlier post, but I momentarily gave in and assumed the standard mindset of devotees of the EF Latin Mass in my region of the U.S. Lest it be thought I was making anything up, I assure you I've incorporated many things I've been told about how many folks think the usus antiquior should be celebrated.
-
Remember also the very strict directive during the Low Mass - that the music, played or sung, must never impede the progress of the Priest in his saying the Mass.
Problems arise when people think this also applies during a High Mass as well. Had a lady at my chapel - one of the old guard, bless their hearts - who told me the choir should immediately stop the Sanctus as soon as the priest was about to perform (forgive me if that's the wrong verb to use) the consecration. I asked her if she meant stopping mid-sentence. "Of course!" she said. "That just gets in the way of what the priest is doing."
I understand what the priority should be at mass. Still, I doubt anyone, let alone God, is mollified if the cherubim's hymn of unending praise must come to a screeching halt so the priest doesn't have to wait a few extra seconds. -
The priest should halt. Now, I do think the choir’s music should be appropriate if you have an idea of how long the Canon takes when singing the Benedictus & Agnus Dei; I don’t think waiting five minutes (which has happened) is acceptable (but necessary for the former) nor is getting on with things quietly particularly edifying (one can do that with the latter).Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
-
I would respond to the post below mine, except for the fact that (aside from being misleading about and/or misunderstanding of certain points) it gives the impression, through the use of dripping sarcasm, that the poster does not want the points made by that sarcasm to be challenged.
See, this is precisely the problem with most people's understanding with regards to the Liturgy. A total disdain for what was sacred to others in the past by characterizing participation in the old rite as "not engaging in the rite" or "incomprehensible". I daresay the saints of the Church, most of whom only had the Latin Mass, would vehemently disagree, and this sort of mindset is completely inaccurate.
That's all I should say. I pray you all have a wonderful Sunday afternoon as well as a restful holiday tomorrow!Thanked by 1CCooze -
Hope you're having a great Sunday, Charles, and please don't think I'm making fun of you or the EF Latin Mass which I love dearly. What I'm trying to point out is that there are certain EF people who favor what I consider to be disastrous policies which I believe teach your average Catholic to hate the EF.
These short-sighted, ideologically-driven policies have nothing to do with the liturgical norms of the Church and, in fact, contradict them. If they don't contradict them directly, they certainly don't leave any space for people to experience the clear directives of all the 20th century popes and the Second Vatican Council.
So, what are some of the policies that have been encouraged in certain TLM venues? 1) Not allowing people to sing vernacular hymns before and after Mass. 2) Doing nothing or outright not allowing the people to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them. 3) Not allowing girls or women to sing the propers or other chants. 4) Banning Christmas carols and other seasonal vernacular hymns, and 5) having almost "wall-to-wall" organ playing during the Low Mass which prevents people from making responses.
I'm sure you get the idea, but this kind of praxis contradicts the spirit and letter of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Cardinal Josef Ratzinger said in his 1998 speech to the Ecclesia Dei pilgrims in Rome that "the essential criteria of Sacrosanctum Concilium" must be followed in both forms of the Roman rite, and he enumerated them in his speech. Cardinal Sarah said that Sacrosanctum Concilium is "the Magna Carta" of all liturgical celebrations in the Church.
So, these policies which limit people's participation in the EF are more often than not driven by theological ax-grinding. The sedevacantists, for example, see in the preconciliar reforms of Pope Pius XII the ghost of Bugnini trying to infiltrate the usus antiquior and will not accept any liturgical changes which the preconciliar popes ordered
so that the faithful would no longer be, in the words, of Pope Pius XI, mute spectators at Holy Mass.
Others propagate the false liturgical theology that the Low Mass is essentially the private devotional prayer of the priest, and participation by the faithful is a hindrance and distraction. Hence, we've been told in our diocese that there are to be no vocal responses by the people during Low Mass.
We experienced one priest who, when Pope Benedict restored the EF Latin Mass, told the altar boys that they would now get back the responses "that were taken away from them", i.e., setting up a false tension between responses said by the servers and those said by the people.
The same priest came up with the idea that the only hymns that could be sung before and after the Latin Mass had to be in Latin. The justification for this was that a "Latin Mass" required Latin hymns, no matter what the liturgical norms actually said. This good priest just kind of reflexively returned to his memories of the Mass before Vatican II and was not interested in the least in what the documents had to say. The only problem with that was his memories of the "good old days" were really the "bad old days" of a liturgical practice which had ossified and petrified to the point that Sacrosanctum Concilium was passed first and almost unanimously at the Council because it was one of the few, and maybe the only thing that liberals and conservatives agreed on instantly.
There was a reason that Archbishop Lefebrve signed Sacrosanctum Concilium. The liturgy in many places had atrophied and become like a whitewashed fresco, with many layers of paint, in the metaphorical analogy of Cardinal Ratzinger. I don't have disdain for the liturgical directives of the preconciliar Popes, or the Second Vatican Council, or the work of the early Liturgical Movement. I would argue that those who would pursue the policies I've described above are the ones who have disdain for the clear spirit and intent of the Church's pre- and post-conciliar liturgical norms. I assure you I don't have disdain for the liturgical culture of the saints, all of whom I'm sure would want to worship as the Church directs and allows.
Lest you think I'm being a radical liturgical hippy, I believe the ideal EF celebration should contain a mix of the following, all of which have been praised and encouraged by the Church before and after the Council: full Gregorian propers, chanted ordinary, polyphonic motets and vernacular hymnody.
At any rate, hope you have a wonderful and relaxing holiday. -
Julie, thank you for the comment re Benedict and SC. I hadn't heard that before, and while it seems intuitively correct, I had lingering scruples.
To play devil's advocate for the sedes: as the liturgical movement started moving, and particularly in the 1950s, not everything was equally good and necessary. Reformers were not necessarily perfectly wise and holy before V2. The difference was that they thought there WERE liturgical norms; they just wanted to change them. That said, though, I don't disagree at all with your argument.
-
Then-Cardinal Ratzinger's groundbreaking speech outlining the way forward for the EF may be accessed here: Ten Years of the Motu Proprio "Ecclesia Dei" (Oct. 24, 1998)
It is widely acknowledged that the original Liturgical Movement was "hijacked" by progressives at some point before the Second Vatican Council, but that there was great work done by the movement cannot be denied. The restoration of Gregorian chant is certainly among the greatest accomplishments, as well as the inspired liturgical commentaries and scholarship of Pius Parsch, Gueranger and others.
I was just reading the other day about the fact that vernacular translations of the Missal were not allowed until the turn of the century. This was also a development of the Liturgical Movement. Fr. Stedman, a Brooklyn priest, published his wonderful My Sunday Missal, known as the "Stedman-you-can't-get-lost-missal" in the '30's which was extremely popular. For the first time Catholics could follow the Mass in their own language. I don't think we realize what a tremendous breakthrough this was at the time.
-
P.S. As exciting as it was (at least for liturgy nerds like myself) to read about the impact of Fr. Stedman's Missal in The Unread Vision by Fr. Peckler, it is rather amusing to see how quickly Fr. Peckler interjects a note of caution about being too dependent upon texts at Mass. Quoting J.A. Winnen (1941):
"There lurks already in the offing a liturgical heresy, that might be called "Missalitis", the error of those who think that the Liturgical Movement begins and ends with the printing press, that the more Missals in circulation, the stronger the Liturgical Movement, that a Missal is as essential to Holy Mass as a car, a radio, a telephone or a refrigerator to that mythical "American standard of living." Today it seems: "No Missal, no Mass." -
Another novel thought from Fr. Peckler: "As the reforms have taken hold in the United States, we now recognize that it is problematic when participants (including the one presiding) are overly dependent upon a text, whether it be The Sacramentary, a hymnal, or some other service book used by the assembly."
The Unread Vision, The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America: 1926-1956, 1998, p. 51.Thanked by 1Adam Wood -
So, what are some of the policies that have been encouraged in certain TLM venues? 1) Not allowing people to sing vernacular hymns before and after Mass. 2) Doing nothing or outright not allowing the people to say or sing in Latin those parts of the Mass that pertain to them. 3) Not allowing girls or women to sing the propers or other chants. 4) Banning Christmas carols and other seasonal vernacular hymns, and 5) having almost "wall-to-wall" organ playing during the Low Mass which prevents people from making responses.
I have asked elsewhere in this forum, in regard to the first question you raise: taking it for granted that vernacular hymns do not belong within the context of Mass, is there a proper place for them? If vernacular hymns are allowed before and after Mass, under what conditions is this pastorally sensitive? (I'm thinking of my own parish, where my director has the choir sing hymns sometimes, to texts which the congregation can't sing because of lack of copies. By contrast, when we sing Holy God, we praise Thy Name at the end of Benediction, everyone who wishes to sing loudly does so, as far as the second verse. If we chose to sing a third verse, 2 of us would know it, maybe.)
Is part of the problem with your second situation the fact that (in so many quarters) Catholics of a certain generation were taught that Low Mass was the real Mass and High Mass was utterly un-necessary showmanship (usually sung badly)? I refer to this as clinging to the little bits of wood when the rescue ship arrives.
I'm unaware of any parish which observes the no-women rule, but -- just for the sake of humoring me -- why would such a rule be implemented in the first place? Sometimes text w/out context is pretext. (Credit Fr. Matthew McNeely FSSP for that formulation.)
Would the actual Christmas Carol matter, or is your suggestion to open the floodgates and let He came down that they may have life equally welcome with Adeste Fideles, Puer Natus in Bethlehem and all such similar stuff ? If Christmas carols are banned from the inside of the Church during Mass (which strikes me as quite sensible) is it possible that the goal, however badly implemented, was to encourage fuller parish life, and thus require times and places other than Mass for all our music?
I'll stop there, because I must devote attention to non-blogosphere-related events. -
I'll start with your last point first: do you really think that it's a good idea to tell people on Christmas morning that they can't sing Hark the Herald Angels Sing or Adeste Fideles at their EF High Mass when they're probably being sung in every OF church in the world? What possible benefit do you expect to come from that? Is that a constructive path to the "mutual enrichment" and "liturgical reconciliation" between the two forms of the Roman rite? Is it really the goal to purge all resemblance or familiarity between the EF and OF so as to almost guarantee that anyone walking into the EF after 50 years of the OF has absolutely zero point of reference to latch onto?
As to the no-women rule, why would I be bringing it up, if I hadn't experienced it, and if it was such an unpleasant experience, why is the burden on me to explain why it was done at all and why it is pretext and not context or text, or whatever you said. (What did you say?)
As to your first point, I get the feeling we could argue till the cows come home why singing a beautiful vernacular hymn at the beginning and end of the EF Mass is a valid and appropriate idea, but the bottom line is this, in my opinion: if the Church allows it, what is the problem? If you think Latin entrance and closing hymns make sense at the OF, why don't you try this program at the OF Mass for every Sunday for the next year and tell me if you still have a job at the end of the year:
Entrance Hymn: Adoro te devote (every Sunday of the year, mind you!)
Rossini Propers
Mass VIII
Offertory: Ave Verum Corpus (Mozart)
Communion: Panis Angelicus (Lambilotte)
Closing Hymn: O Sanctissima
I guarantee that if you've heard this kind of thing as many times as I've had at a Latin Mass, you'd understand my thoughts on the subject.
-
Puer natus is equivalent to O Filii et Filiae at Easter to me. I like them at Communion...Thanked by 1CCooze
-
[Stepping back off the land-mine, hoping the damage can be repaired]
Julie,
I seem to have, quite inadvertently touched a nerve. I meant no disrespect to you. Please accept my apology.
Let me re-state more carefully the point about carols. I have no objection, in principle, to the singing of Christmas carols before Mass, even up to a procession such as Adeste Fideles. I could see using a Christmas carol as a recessional. As I have urged elsewhere, caution needs to be used in discerning appropriate Christmas carols. The fact that everyone else in every parish in the diocese is doing something -- if that something is wrong -- doesn't constitute grounds for following error. All that said, if someone were opposed to the use of Christmas carols during or before Mass, I wouldn't see any grounds on which to compel him to use them.
I gave voice, ineffectively, to this thought: perhaps the banning of vernacular music arose from the desire to spread knowledge of the treasury of the Church. (If the only music to which one is exposed is (reductio warning) Jingle Bells and Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer would it be preferable to use these at Mass or ban their use, so as to allow real Catholic music the room to breathe in a real Catholic setting. Does that make more sense?
As to the "mutual enrichment", even as His Holiness used the expression it sounds like a synonym for "compromise". Mutual enrichment can't just mean "blending". Whatever is proposed as an enrichment must actually enrich, and not merely change, the organism to which it is added. New saints can (and I hope will) be added to the Missal of 1962. Extraordinary Ministers shouldn't. -
There was an invitation on this very forum a couple of years ago for singers to join a Latin Mass in N. California, which I almost passed on to my choir. A closer reading made it plain that sopranos and altos would not be welcome.
-
A closer reading made it plain that sopranos and altos would not be welcome.
Probably some would have been.Thanked by 1Jeffrey Quick -
Hmm, Adam, that sounds very interesting . . .
Chris, I guess perspective is everything, and if you're approaching this from the dominant OF liturgical experience, I can understand your caution. Really though, in the end, in light of Arbp. Ganswein's expanded papal ministry discourse, wondering how the Church is going to function under a co-papacy consisting of an active and contemplative member, one from each ideological wing of the Church, kind of puts the hymn question in proper perspective, which is that it's not really that important.
Like you, I'll draw the line at Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, but at Christmas time I'm perfectly fine with either Adeste Fideles or O Come All Ye Faithful. : ) -
Well, yes Adam, we see your point ;-)
I was so happy this (actually last) winter to see Parrott taking aim at Falsetto beliefs: the ‘countertenor’ cross-examined and standing up for real basses. -
I think I agree with the points Chris made. Both regarding hymns (at Christmas) as well as the "mutual enrichment" of the two forms.
Regarding "if the Church allows it, what is the problem" - I also have a problem with that mindset. Ought our only criteria for doing something be to ask the question "does the Church allow it"? Oughtn't we also look into traditions, customs, and whether there is another preferable/more ideal thing to do than that thing that is allowed?
I think one of the most singly destructive things to happen in the Church in the last 50 years (aside from doing things which were outright prohibited/never officially allowed) has been simply "doing things that were allowed" with no regard for tradition and the *reasons* for which those things may have been "allowed" (such reasons normally being to accommodate unusual/less-than-ideal circumstances, i.e. exceptions or things which ought not to become or be viewed as the norm). Ought we to assume that simply because something is "allowed" that it is therefore "good" to do in any circumstance? Surely we ought not to think that. -
I'm simply talking about singing a well-chosen, beautiful, dignified vernacular hymn for an opening or closing hymn at an EF Mass. How does this practice show disrespect for tradition and what reasons could there be not to allow it?
For example, what exactly could be harmful/wrong/questionable with this praxis at an FSSP parish in Bordeaux, France, where Midnight Mass opens with a vernacular Christmas carol?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQp9mmQf_sM
I'm trying very hard not to be cheeky, but do you perhaps think singing lovely, orthodox vernacular congregational hymns at the opening and closing of an EF Mass inclines the faithful to modernism or secularism? This isn't exactly like singing Twist and Shout, or whatever the folks were doing in Rio at the last World Youth Day. I would instantly join you in making a case to ban that, but this?
Quite specifically, what danger to the Faith and morals of Catholics is there in singing English hymns such as Come down, O Love divine and Christ is made the sure foundation at an EF Missa Cantata as the processional and recessional, and I'm not being snarky. I'm really not.
Thanked by 1Roborgelmeister -
Quite specifically, what danger to the Faith and morals of Catholics is there in singing English hymns such as Come down, O Love divine and Christ is made the sure foundation at an EF Missa Cantata as the processional and recessional, and I'm not being snarky. I'm really not.
Go ahead and be snarky. I have reached the age where I don't really care if someone finds me snarky.
I see nothing wrong with good hymns and they are either part of local custom or even tradition in the U.S. Those hymns were around before Vatican II. Carefully chosen hymns can substitute for Propers. There is a collection by one of our own CMAA people of hymn Propers written for that purpose.Thanked by 1JulieColl -
@JulieColl - I have not found anyone in this thread, myself included, who suggested anything in favor of banning hymns (whether vernacular or Latin) at Mass or mentioning that singing hymns at Mass is bad. Personally, I only made the point that they are not proper to the Mass and ought not be viewed as "needed" in any way - at the Mass, they are simply "extra". Now, certainly even at an EF High Mass there will usually be "extra" musical selections other than the texts of the Mass. And if at that EF High Mass (before or after) or at an OF Mass a vernacular hymn is used before, during, or after Mass, and that's the "extra" music deemed most appropriate by the competent authorities, then fine! I never said I have an inherent problem with that. All I have been meaning to say is that...once again...there are many great hymns out there, but they are not technically proper to the Mass and there is absolutely no need for them to be mandated, and neither should the faithful be given the impression that they are mandated or need to be some sort of "liturgical" norm or that they must join in on a hymn at every Mass in order for it to be a part of a "normal" liturgical experience.
@CharlesW - just to clarify, isn't singing hymn propers still singing the propers, not doing a substitution? And so the example you cite is not actually "substituting" anything for the propers (unless by "substitution" you mean it is such because to fit the hymn/poetic structure the text is modified but is still more or less the same)?Thanked by 1JulieColl -
If it is a word-for-word setting, then it would be a Proper in a hymn rather than Gregorian format. Some hymns have texts that are pretty close to the Propers, but not written for that purpose. There are plenty of examples of both out there. When I can find a close enough match, I choose entrance hymns that substitute for actual introits, since I can only use Gregorian introits as preludes.
-
Not for nothing, but someone sent me an article today about the transfer of St. Agnes in NYC to the Opus Dei, and this paragraph caught my eye:
Prestia had been hired after the previous parish organist and choirmaster James Wetzel — who had served at St. Agnes for five years — was fired over a disagreement over music. According to sources, Fr. Murphy disapproved of the polyphony Wetzel regularly offered, saying it was "too intellectual" for the laity, and asked Wetzel to start employing English hymnals. Wetzel disagreed, Fr. Murphy fired him, and the entire choir left in protest.
I hope everyone has been able to move on gracefully after this unfortunate turn of events. Mr. Wetzel's group is superb, and I'm of the personal opinion that they are the best sacred music ensemble in the NY area. I'm just stunned, however, that if this report is true and if I'm not misconstruing it, that the brouhaha was initially caused by . . . the question of using English hymns at the Latin Mass which we're discussing on this thread.
Rather startling to see how deep this issue goes and that it can affect people in such dramatic ways. I just don't know what to say. I love my Anglican hymnal and singing vernacular hymns at the Latin Mass, but that their use or non-use could potentially cause such discord in a community is very sad. It's all very well to discuss it spiritedly here on the forum, but really, this is too much.Thanked by 1BruceL -
It was in place of the polyphony. Tis the key there. And, neither DM nor pastor had any clue as to what they were doing.
-
neither DM nor pastor had any clue as to what they were doing.
Sometimes I feel like this is the reason behind 99 and 44/100% of our problems. -
One point that needs to be raised regarding hymns being sung at Mass, is the fact that in the Middle Ages, and the years prior to and in some places even some time after the Council of Trent, hymns actually were sung between the Alleluia and the Gospel. They were known as sequences. Most Catholics today have only been exposed to a tiny handful of sequences, if any at all (sadly). They might be familiar with Victimae Paschali Laudes, Veni Sancte Spiritus, Lauda Sion Salvatore, Pange Lingua Gloriosi (the one by St Fortunatus), or Stabat Mater Dolorosa. But these represent only a tiny fraction of sequences that were composed and sung in medieval churches.
Sequences are metrical hymns composed specifically as Mass propers for literally every day of the Christian year. In fact, there are many more sequences in medieval chant books than there are days of the year. These wonderful compositions were originally modeled on the hymns of the Divine Office, which is why they are metrical, poetical, and very frequently rhyming and/or alliterative with their lyrics. You could say that sequences are actually office hymns by a different name, just intended for the Office of the Mass (Officium Missae).
The sequences also seem to occupy a conspicuously similar high point in the Mass that the hymns share in the hours of the Divine Office: a festive song that is sung in close connection with the chanting of the Psalter and the reading of Scripture. In many ways, a sequence is like a musical commentary on the biblical text for that day, because it places the readings in their proper context. In other words, it identifies and sets the tone for the feast that is being observed.
Many of these sequences were composed by saints. Others were composed by pious monastics, clergy, and even laymen, often anonymously. But all of them are beautiful, profound, and pure in their expression of Christian faith. And every one of them belongs in the Mass today. So why not restore them to the Proper of the Mass? Why not translate the entire repertory, and offer them in both Latin and the vernacular for congregations to sing according to their custom and desire?
It just seems completely ridiculous to me that singing hymns at Mass can produce such arguments and hand-wringing, especially when there is already this solid tradition of singing exactly these types of hymns at Mass, stretching back through at least 1,400 odd years of Latin Christianity.
-
While Sequences are described as Hymns traditionally and by the many writers on the chants of the Church, this does not really help us. The Angelic Hymn (Gloria) and Sequences are very different from Divine Office hymns, Processional Hymns, secular Carols and the modern compositions in the vernacular sometimes described as hymns but could better be described as songs.
Sequences while metrical are almost always one of the following,
1. AA, BB, CC, etc. Meter stays the same but the melody changes.
2. A, BB, CC etc. Meter and melody changes after the repeat. (Notkerian Sequences)
3. AA, BB, CC, DE, DE etc. Meter changes (2 or 3 times) and melody changes. (Adam of St. Victor Sequences)
Sequences of type 1 such as the Stabat Mater Dolorosa can and are sung to a repeating melody, in the style of an Office Hymn, in fact part of it is used as an Office Hymn. But this is an exception I have only found 2 sequences that have been treated such and the Office Hymn style melody is very recent in comparison to the Sequence melody.
Also Sequences do not generally reuse melodies even if they have the same meter, most have their own unique melody.
Office Hymns on the other hand are almost always metrical with a repeating melody, I have only found one Office Hymn that is not metrical.
N.B. Pange Lingua Gloriosi (the one by St Fortunatus) was written as a processional Hymn, I have not seen any suggestion that it was used as a sequence.These wonderful compositions were originally modeled on the hymns of the Divine Office,
My understanding is that Sequences are older than the use of Hymns in the Divine Office. The Earliest Divine Office Hymns were originally Processional or Devotional pieces later modified for use as Hymns in the Office.But all of them are beautiful, profound, and pure in their expression of Christian faith. And every one of them belongs in the Mass today.
Some of them are beautiful etc. but some are truly awful, either text or melody or both. I agree that some of these sequences should be brought back into use, but my understanding is that the N.O. does not like sequences and many places avoid using them.
I have avoided commenting on the use of Hymns at Mass, but may add my thoughts to this thread...Thanked by 1CHGiffen -
The distinctions between the musical and poetical forms of office hymns and sequences are relatively minor, though. My own assertion was not that they were the same, as they are clearly not the same. But they are very similar to each other, which is what I was getting at. While the two may distinguishable by some of their patterns, and what place they occupy in the liturgy, they are still drawn up from the same models and seem to be used with a similar purpose in mind. Like the office hymns, with a sequence we have a clear pattern of meter, rhythm, and poetry with frequent use of rhyming verse and alliteration.
A sequence is not like an antiphon or responsory, nor is it even like the Gloria in excelsis, even though the Gloria is referred to as a "hymn" in this case. So what other musical genre in the Latin liturgy does a sequence compare to, other than the office hymn?Also Sequences do not generally reuse melodies even if they have the same meter, most have their own unique melody.
Not being an expert on this subject myself, I would speculate that this has more to do with the specific melodic formulas of the Alleluia verses that sequences were originally composed for. The first sequences were intended to follow (sequentia) the Alleluia in a seamless fashion, continuing the chant in the same mode. So, the variety of sequence melodies could have arisen out of this at first, and then taken on a sort of life of its own as the genre developed in subsequent centuries.
The composers of the sequences probably also felt more freedom to use new melodies because it was a newer type of song for the liturgy, whereas the office hymns were older and more established in their use, so they were more prone to repetition in their melodies.My understanding is that Sequences are older than the use of Hymns in the Divine Office. The Earliest Divine Office Hymns were originally Processional or Devotional pieces later modified for use as Hymns in the Office.
Keep in mind that the Use of Rome, especially its own Divine Office, was local to Rome and surrounding areas for most of its history. Other parts of the Latin Church had their own usages, which included hymns sung at the hours. The office that St Benedict assembled for his monasteries included office hymns, for example.
We also know that some of the office hymns are much older than the sequences because the sequence, as a distinct genre, did not begin to come into being until the eighth and ninth centuries. The first hymns, in comparison, were being composed by men like St Ambrose, St Augustine, St Gregory, etc. who lived 200 - 400 years before then. St Notker and other composers from the Carolingian era are credited with establishing and popularizing this particular form of song in the ninth century, though there is plenty of evidence to suggest that St Notker composed his works using older models that were already in use at St Gallen and other parts of the Franco-German church.N.B. Pange Lingua Gloriosi (the one by St Fortunatus) was written as a processional Hymn, I have not seen any suggestion that it was used as a sequence.
You are quite right about Pange Lingua Gloriosi, here. It is not, nor ever has been used as a sequence, but is a hymn for the Adoration of the Cross in the Good Friday liturgy, parts of which are also used in the office for Holy Week. I had originally started out that first paragraph describing hymns sung in the Mass in general, then went back and edited it, but I must have neglected to remove that part. Thank you for pointing out that error.Some of them are beautiful etc. but some are truly awful, either text or melody or both. I agree that some of these sequences should be brought back into use, but my understanding is that the N.O. does not like sequences and many places avoid using them.
Not wishing to come off as provocative, but could you please provide an example of what you would consider a bad sequence? I ask this because I have encountered this argument before in several places, but I have yet to see even one cited example.
Also, what would be the criteria of a good or bad sequence in your view? All of the sequences that I have seen or heard so far have been excellent. They would be the perfect hymns to sing at Mass today, since they originally were sung at Mass. There's no need to innovate or make ad hoc decisions in the liturgy, since there's already a model from history to guide us.
For myself, the criteria of any good hymn is that it be (1) theologically orthodox and, (2) with pious words and music, (3) express some truth about God and the saints. So far, every sequence I have encountered has met that standard. The only problem is that they are mostly not sung in church, where they were originally intended. They are only ever heard in artistic stage performances, like the medieval chant programs put on by various ensembles.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IoO7KwIm1Vc
Revisiting this discussion about vernacular hymns at an EF Mass. I happened to come across this video of an EF Mass at the FSSPX Seminary in Zaitzkofen, Germany. What was fascinating was their use of a number board to show hymn numbers, the pages of the Liber Usualis, the Mass setting and the Credo (seen at the 16:21 mark):
LEID 576
LU 1356
1845
211
MESSE 9
CREDO 3
(This may not seem unusual to Catholics who attend the OF, but this is quite novel for the EF, at least in my experience. I remember asking at a Latin Mass venue if we could use a number board since they had the excellent Adoremus hymnal in the pews, and it would be much simpler than having to print out a program, but after the shocked silence and horrified expressions, you'd think I'd asked if we could carry pots of incense and dance around the altar.) -
It makes a lot of sense! St. Bede's, Clapham Park does it too. I love it. Jackson Osborn in another thread pointed out for Episcopalians, there is no trouble in flipping between multiple items in the pew, and everything is found with ease. Catholics struggle with this, so it would help in finding the music, but you would have to have a lot of catechesis, and what about the propers? The FSSP in Brussels just gives one to anyone who comes in. Admittedly, it’s a small congregation… sigh. What a challenge. There's no single solution.Thanked by 1JulieColl
-
There's no single solution.
So true! I think having the St. Edmund Campion Missal in all the pews and a sign board like the one above might be the best solution if you want only one book, but if I could, I'd stock all the pews with the Mass and Vespers with Gregorian chant, The Hymnal 1982, The Parish Book of Chant and Communio. -
>> use of a number board to show hymn numbers, the pages of the Liber Usualis, the Mass setting and the Credo[...] This may not seem unusual to Catholics who attend the OF, but this is quite novel for the EF, at least in my experience.
for our Latin Mass the hymn board shows
the Sunday or Feast
Processional (hymnal and number)
Kyriale
Credo
Recessional (hymnal and number)
I never thought about how it may be done elsewhere; seems sensible.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,425
- General Music Discussion7,736
- Job Openings1,358
- Management of Music Programs836
- Choral Matters522
- Church Documents and Rubrics511
- CMAA Notes291
- Events663
- For Newcomers: Read First23
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody838
- Gregorian Chant: General2,604
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis356
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong679
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,228
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry153
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism728
- Amusements172
- General Discussion1,006
- Opinions114