church's first preference

proper in latin with appropriate psalm verses.

At Walsingham we sing a processional entrance hymn followed by the introit at the censing of the altar. This makes the most sense because the introit's appropriate place is preserved directly preceding the Trinitarian invocation and the beginning of mass. An Entrance hymn, while nice and not to be sneered at (and consistent with Anglican tradition), is an ornamental extra.

Of course, your priest may be correct in his understanding of GIRM, which clearly states the introit OR another suitable song. Since Walsingham does not follow the Roman missal we are not necessarily bound by the GIRM.

It hurts me to say this, but...

In spite of Miss Cooze's tidy reasoning (which I would love to affirm) the GIRM, by which you all are bound, clearly says that the introit OR another suitable song may be sung. This implies that whichever is sung, hymn or introit, it is a part of the mass, but that only one or the other should be sungen.

Emphasis being mine:
USCCB: GIRM:

44. Among gestures are included also actions and processions, by which the Priest, with the Deacon and ministers, goes to the altar; the Deacon carries the Evangeliary or Book of the Gospels to the ambo before the proclamation of the Gospel; the faithful bring up the gifts and come forward to receive Communion. It is appropriate that actions and processions of this sort be carried out with decorum while the chants proper to them are sung, in accordance with the norms laid down for each.

Also,
The Entrance
48. 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 the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant 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) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.


I apologize for quoting things you have clear access to, but I don't (read: no longer) see the words "hymn" or "song" at all in 48.


74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory Chant (cf. no. 37 b), which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance Chant (cf. no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the Offertory...

(But, you do get to do "both," if you want to ADD a hymn, at Communion:)
86. While the Priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Chant is begun... However, if there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion Chant should be ended in a timely manner.

88. When the distribution of Communion is over, if appropriate, the Priest and faithful pray quietly for some time. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation.



Technically, it looks like Communion is the only time a hymn is specifically offered to the congregation.
(A search for "song" in this book of the GIRM returns only that songs are not permitted as replacement to the responsorial psalm.)

But,
1) I think that in the US we abide by the USCCB translation of the GIRM, and
2) doesn't cantus=chant and canticum=song? If so, I don't think that there is as much ambiguity as one may think, as the Latin version does specify between the two.

At the moment "or the Diocesan Bishop" is apparently interpreted as justifying anything published by a diocesan controlled publishing house being available anywhere in the USA. I doubt whether this would stand up in a court of law - unless USCCB has formally stated that it is so. Even worse from my viewpoint, in England&Wales (where the bishops have never faced up to their responsibility for regulating musical texts) there is a general presumption that 'if it's ok in the States it's ok here'.

Back to the OP's question. Bear in mind that in the OF the processional chants are supposed to be subordinated to the action, they are an accompaniment. At the same time we are supposed to respect the integrity of the text sung, vide GS#19 :

... But there is an option regarding versicles, even including omission of some of them, provide the versicles retained express a complete thought ...

They are also supposed to continue throughout, but not beyond, the action. This is stated explicitly for the Communion. Does this mean that if you run out of text, you should sing something else? (eg. part of a hymn, respecting the integrity of the thought)
Given the hierarchical nature of the church, the celebrant has the responsibilty for selecting texts, which of course he can delegate but he is still responsible for the decisions of those to whom he delegates. He is answerable to the rector of the church, and beyond him to the Ordinary. Unless he is overuled, I think you should abide by his decisions (when licit), even if they are manifestly based on faulty reasoning.

An aptus comparison.
One might offer, as well, the certitude that an icon of the Blessed Mother is likely without doubt a truer likeness of her than the Bouguereau painting - or any other western art of her.

If the Offertory chant is directly listed in the GIRM as being proper to the celebration of Mass, why is it so difficult to find either the appropriate proper text or the music for the text, or both????

If he doesn't want both, then there's no reason to include a hymn.

Often, though, the argument that both cannot be done is used to exclude the Proper.

What authority does the above mentioned "visiting priest" have? If he is not the Pastor and is simply supplying Mass, his job is to shut up and say the Mass. He is not your employer, the Pastor is, and at that point this "visiting priest's" job is to do what he's told to do without meddling in the affairs of the parish. He should not have even brought this up with you. And I agree with ClergetKubisz: he probably doesn't like the propers and wants to use this to foist his personal opinion on you as if it were a dogmatical pronouncement to try to get you to stop using them. And if all he is doing is preaching a "give my religious-order-that-only-has-12-barely-active-members-under-the-age-of-90-and-hasn't-had-a-vocation-in-60-years-so-we-have-to-delegate-all-of-our-work-to-hired-laypeople money -- and look at these expensive, glossy brochures that tell you how well we spend the money you give us" sermon, he has even less right to butt in.

I'm with Salieri. This visiting priest has absolutely zero authority over you. Smile and nod and then do whatever you usually do.

If the pastor says that you are replacing all other music with a full congregational kazoo band, then hope he is joking.

Also look for a new position immediately. Especially if he tells you to do what the visiting priest says, contrary to established practice, especially if he himself has approved it.

The same thing can be reversed however.

Fr. Keyes, a relatively known name around the CMAA, used to do missions around the country and his (I believe sole) request to the parish was that the actual text of the Responsorial Psalm be sung using the actual text of the Psalm - what he found was quite different.

I believe the Holy See's rulings on female altar servers from the late last century are instructive regarding a priest's local authority.

The Pope permits bishops to prudentially allow women altar servers.

The bishop is not obligated to do this.

Nor is he obligated if his bishops' conference colleagues generally allow it.

Nor, if he permits it, are priests obligated to do so.

The layering of hymn and proper, which I think is a prudentially very sound pastoral allowance, is still a bit of a departure from the GIRM as written.

I would follow the priest presider's instructions.

Maybe I'm just...

Three cheers for salty!

Hip hip hooray! (For both.)

Ok, I am possibly wrong.

GIRM 111. There should be harmony and diligence among all those involved in the effective preparation of each liturgical celebration in accordance with the Missal and other liturgical books, both as regards the rites and as regards the pastoral and musical aspects. This should take place under the direction of the rector of the church and after consultation with the faithful in things that directly pertain to them. However, the Priest who presides at the celebration always retains the right of arranging those things that pertain to him.

In an EF context, a priest could inhibit the use of sung propers by choosing to celebrate a spoken ("low") Mass instead of a sung ("high") Mass, and there are certainly legitimate reasons he might do so, depending on circumstances.

In the OF context, we have GIRM 111 noting his right to arrange "the things that pertain to him." Perhaps we should consider what can be identified within that term, and outside it.

I don't think anyone would disagree that it includes the selection of texts which the priest is to pray: which eucharistic prayer, which option of the penitential rite, whether there is to be a sign of peace.

But would it include the selection of music during the Offertory or during Holy Communion, when he is not required to sing anything, but has his own ritual tasks to perform?

Would it include the selection of music for the singing of the Responsorial Psalm?
Would it include the selection of music to be performed after the final dismissal?
Would it include the selection of music to be performed while the priest is entering?

Or they could just use their booming microphone to talk over the music and shout you down, like the priest in my situation did to our choir...of children.

We sing a hymn during the entrance procession and then the proper chant during the incensing of the Altar.

We sing the Communion proper during communion then a post-communion hymn.

Sometimes, depending on the difficulty and length of the chants, we just have the propers or just have the hymns

we had a read Responsorial Psalm plus a hymn after the second reading.

I can imagine how such an arrangement might come about. In some parish, the musicians might start replacing the psalm with a hymn, not knowing that to do so is forbidden in the GIRM. Then the next pastor might recognize that it's wrong to do that, so he might add the spoken psalm to make sure it was included.

If the people are already bored after the first reading and need *something to do* in order to feel that they are still alive, then there are problems greater than what a musician can fix.

But perhaps a workaround might be to have the people sing the verses of the responsorial psalm in alternation with a cantor, without the antiphon. Singing the psalm "in modo directo" (without the antiphon interrupting it) is an option indicated in the GIRM.

Thanks for that, Steve -
This really puts things in their proper perspective. As in so many other ways, the post VII NO praxis shows an utter lack of growth from heritage (more properly, a loss of consciousness of tradition's whys and wherefores), but has resulted in 'paste on' procedures with the barest of liturgical or theological pedigree. To a large, and shameful, degree this is/was purposefully engineered to create a church with cultural or ritual amnesia.

At Walsingham we do, on occasion, interrupt the procession by having the sacred ministers stop at a 'station' (such as the creche) for V&R plus collect, after which the procession continues to the high altar. The introit is then sung as the altar is incensed.

Stations may be the statue of an important saint, a particularly notable side altar, an icon, etc., etc.

This is all derived from the ancient Roman custom of processions through the streets of Rome with stops at particularly important 'stational' churches.

But unfortunately GIRM give the conference of bishops authority to approve other chants, and the USA version gives this power to any diocesan, who can interpret 'chant' any way he pleases.

Talk to the pastor. The pastor needs to have the discussion with the visiting priest. If your pastor says do the antiphon and hymn, then do both. If the pastor says do what ever the priest celebrant says, then do whatever the priest presiding at the given liturgy says.

The pastor is new here, as are the propers. (The first time I sang all 3 propers was during Triduum, and will be singing them again for Ascension and Pentecost.) I'll ask him after Pentecost if he likes how it is going, and if so I'll do them for Trinity and Corpus Christi as well. If not, I'll ask how he'd like to change it. But at all costs I want to avoid causing any hoopla that would prematurely end the experiment -- such as complaints from the visiting priest.