UK Student,

Do you mean one of the following, or something else?

a) Since we are instructed to "Sing the Mass", and since hymnody isn't actually the Mass (in either form) does the Church intend us to abandon the singing of hymnody until we have achieved "Singing the Mass"?

b) Given that the admonition to "Sing the Mass" dates at least from the time of Pope Pius X, more than 100 years ago, isn't it about time we got round to learning to sing the Mass instead of adding more hymns?

c) Is "hymns sung less and the proper chants sung more" the lived experience of most parishes, or

d) should we not be wasting valuable time trying to get to this pointless ideal?

I will categorize these as the

a) Ben Yanke approach
b) Jackson Osborn approach
c) Adam Wood approach
d) Charles W approach

There is obviously a certain amount of hymnody intrinsic to the Mass (the Sequences, for example) that has a place in integrally sung liturgy.

Also, even in the old High Mass, there always existed the possibility of using a liturgical hymn from the Divine Office or even a snippet, for instance, from the Corpus Christi sequence, as a motet outside of its intended and original context, in order to embellish some other liturgical moment. I think there's probably an analogy to be drawn between giving the choir a motet to sing and giving the choir and people a hymn to sing in addition to the proper.

De Musica Sacra (1958) even envisions circumstances "where a centenary or immemorial custom has obtained" in which vernacular, devotional hymns may be sung after the proper texts have been chanted in Latin at Sung Mass. If this was a tolerable custom before the general permission for the use of the vernacular was extended (and, we may imagine, nearly universally in use in those regions in which it was permitted), so a fortiori it would seem to be at least tolerable in our own day.

It is interesting, as well, that this toleration does not seem to limit those permissible, vernacular hymns to texts that content themselves to translating actual liturgical hymns---interesting, given the other restrictions on the use of texts for motets during the liturgy at the time. But, you're the one who has to earn them M. Phil, so I'll let you puzzle over that.

As far as my personal experience, from my point of view in a rather middle-of-the-road parish setting for three years, the re-introduced Proper Chants become a source of enrichment and additional depth, rather than a replacement for the congregational song (and songs) to which the faithful are often very sincerely and dearly attached. My approach is to out-and-out replace a hymn only rarely, but the use of the Proper regularly provides parishioners a context in which they can understand what they are hearing and where it comes from. So, for instance, when All Souls fell on Sunday a year or two ago, we sang the Introit without a hymn before or after for the procession. And I have done a Communio with full psalm on a couple of occasions for the Communion procession. But my bread-and-butter is a both/and approach, which I think respects the integrity of the liturgy and the sensibilities of the faithful at once.

The Gloria is a hymn. The Sanctus is a hymn.

Some poetry in the New Testament (Phil. 2:2-10 for example) is understood to have been liturgical hymnody prior to the writing. Christian, liturgical hymnody was therefore sung in the Pauline churches.

The current GIRM explicitly allows for a hymn of praise to be sung after the reception of Communion (as Chaswjd says above).

The lived experience of most members of the Catholic faithful would suggest that there is indeed a place for hymody: try telling an African or Filipino congregation that there will be no hymns, only changed Proper and Ordinary, and you will not get a happy reaction.

Yeah. What about all those feelings?

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair…

Of course legally the situation in the USA is quite different from most of the rest of the English speaking world, compare GIRM on the Introit with England :-

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from The Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the diocesan Bishop.[55]

In England and Wales: This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the
people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of England and Wales
the Entrance Chant may be chosen from among the following: the
antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale
Simplex, or another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or
the time of year, and whose text has been approved by the Conference
of Bishops of England and Wales.

Even if the word chant includes hymns, I do not know that there are any such that have been approved for this purpose by the Conference of Bishops of England and Wales. (I would be grateful if anybody could point me to any they know of) Though I know that there is a collection of music approved in Ireland by the liturgy department of the bishops conference, which I have not seen. However the liturgical law is in my experience completely ignored, even in English metropolitan cathedrals.

c) Is "hymns sung less and the proper chants sung more" the lived experience of most parishes, or
c) Adam Wood approach

I'm amazed (and complimented) that anyone would find that my varied and diverse advocation of whatever I happen to be thinking about at any given moment adds up to anything coherent enough to create an eponymous "approach."

For the record, if I had to sum up my approach, it would be:

- Know the tradition as well as you possibly can.

- Let the tradition inform your sense of what is beautiful;
- let the church's official teachings inform your sense of what is ideal;
- let the love of Christ inform your sense of what is pastorally appropriate;
- let the inspiration of the Holy Spirit inform your sense of what is possible.

- Do all that is possible, within your specific pastoral situation, to make liturgy and music more beautiful and closer to the ideal.

These types of arguments are also unreasonable, as not only are they quite obviously ad hominem, but they are also a form of ignoratio elenchi, the genetic fallacy, and a red herring.

You cannot take ANYONE's words on the grounds that ANYONE is knowledgeable or espouses the truth in total. You must know the truth by comparing it with the magisterial teaching that has been handed down century after century. You must put it against the scriptures, the writings of the saints and more. I have read some of Rev. Cekada's writings, and he espouses the truth more often than not. So is the case with other authors who have been questioned on this forum.

The example of AL outlines this well. Just because a 'pope' writes something does not make it true. Infallibility is a different matter and is applied to a very small amount of what comes from the chair. The church is very careful about her doctrine and dogma, and those who love the law of God know and study the law until it is written on their hearts and in their minds.

I believe it was JMO who said somewhere else on this forum that truth is truth, no matter who epsouses it.

Test the spirits. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.

ig·no·ra·ti·o e·len·chi
ˌiɡnəˈrāSHēō iˈleNGkī,-kē/
noun
Philosophy
noun: ignoratio elenchi; plural noun: ignorationes elenchi

a logical fallacy that consists in apparently refuting an opponent while actually disproving something not asserted.

Kathy:

Please point out the part of my post that sounds specifically 'bonkey' to you. Thanks.

While the sedevacantist Fr. Cekada is a respected scholar in some areas, his book may not be that useful for this topic. Alcuin Reid's 2011 review in New Liturgical Movement discusses its merits and weaknesses.

Maybe ukstudent could start by letting us know how much information he has found so far on the topic. What role did hymns have in the old form of Mass? Was it consistent everywhere or did it vary across countries? Was it a matter of customs, or written in liturgical regulations? What has changed since the liturgical reform?

That'll help us to suggest material to add to your existing picture.

Is that a red allec or a smart allec?

Kathy

I appreciate your perspective, but many sedes (new word) know a lot more of the truth of things with the present state of the church than many are willing to admit. Unfortunately, they have slipped down the slippery slope of trying to be too black and white. God will be their judge, however... let's leave that determination to Him.

I don't ever remember hearing a hymn at Mass, before the NO. My Westminster Hymnal (imprimatur Nov 1939) is clear that the hymns are either based on office hymns or intended for benediction. The editor's note does suggest that the Latin hymns (office or sequence) might be used at Mass to be sung by the congregation "in place of the customary motet". But as I normally attended a said Mass, except for our weekly school Mass, which was Benedictine conventual, I cannot remember ever hearing a motet. I presume that my experience is atypical, nearly all from one monastic parish in London, UK (1944-63/74). We did of course get to sing lots of hymns, daily school assembly, Benediction, Sunday School, but not at Mass.

While the sedevacantist Fr. Cekada is a respected scholar in some areas, his book may not be that useful for this topic.

I cited it because it discusses the theological shift that I mentioned earlier.

I'd also like to point out that whenever Fr. Cekada is brought up on this forum, someone immediately points out that he is a sedevacantist and claims that his statements are therefore unacceptable. Why the vitriol towards him? It seems like someone is afraid of what he has to say, and wants to get rid of him as quickly as possible.

What CK is saying is an unfortunate reality on our forum. I and others bring up matters and sometimes the person is attacked to invalidate the subject matter as presented by the individual. Are we really searching for truth or just promoting the status quo to make ourselves feel comfortable or justified in our own position whether it is true or not? Are we not after the truth?

I'll note (since I participated in the decline into madness) that the OP seems to be interested in scholarly research regarding the place of hymns. I take this to mean not our opinions (however well formed) or even our ideals (however perfect), but reality.

In reality, a lot of hymns are used. In reality, more hymn singing than Proper chanting is going on.

I wonder if anyone is aware of any actual studies or actual research that actually exists concerning the actual musical practices of actual Catholic parishes in the actual English-speaking world, actually. I imagine that is the sort of thing the OP is looking for.

If the OP is, instead, looking for information about what the Magisterial Teaching Authority of the Holy Catholic Church has to say about music in the Roman Rite, I would refer him or her to the "Catholic Church documents" section of the Musica Sacra Resources page.

If the OP is, instead, interested in the opinions of a motley crew of online traddies of various temperaments and qualifications, I would encourage him or her to ask more more questions here on the forum. Hot-button topics include vernacular pointing systems, rhythmic interpretation of chant, whether or not the SSPX is really Catholic, and what exactly is meant by "participation."

refer him or her to the "Catholic Church documents" section of the Musica Sacra Resources page.

AND note that it lacks the GIRM as it applies outside the USA, for which the first or second on this list.