Welcome! I agree this is a great forum for learning.

I can't help you with all of your specific questions, but I think I can point you in a few helpful directions to start.

The article at the link below is one I've found to be very helpful in explaining the Church's norms and preferences for music at Mass to people in a way suited to beginners:
https://testeverythingblog.com/a-joyful-noise-catholic-liturgical-song-9d50c5a75794

Also, at this link you'll find a book published by CMAA that offers essays I think you will find helpful, based on what you said you are looking for:
https://www.scribd.com/document/12699133/Sing-Like-a-Catholic

You should be able to download the book and read it on your preferred device. I'd recommend not reading that book cover to cover to begin with: look at the table of contents for essays on the topics you're most interested in, and read those first.

Thank you so much for these links and documents! It will take me a while to digest them. So much to learn!

I second the recommendations of Chris Garton-Zavesky

Get it from the horse's mouth... Papel Legislation tells it from a historical perspective devoid of emotional or political leaning... and Tra Le Sollecitudine is just waiting for its day even though it is over 100 years old.

There is nothing intrinsic about a 400-year old hymn which makes it better than a 40 year old hymn: there were plenty of bad ones written 400 years ago.

Now, most of the bad 400 year old ones are no longer remembered, so based on the hymns we know today, the older ones will on-average be better, because the wheat-from-chaff process is still going on for the newer ones. But do not fall into the old = good, new = bad trap. It's simplistic, and can see you overlook much fine material.

Also, you mentioned about a distinction between Protestant vs Catholic hymns. This is bogus. Hymns express faith. But (unless they are a zillion verses long)they do not express it in its fullness, and nor do they belong to a particular church. Instead, hymns may well have been written by people who were Catholic or Protestant at the time the hymn was written. But that is no guarantee that the hymn has fully and faithfully caught the lyricist's denominational leaning.

Thanks for all this. I'm very tired, will try to respond tomorrow.

CeciliaJulia,

One other resource I must recommend: pretty much anything Dr. Peter Kwasniewski has written on the subject of liturgy or music or both. He comments here from time to time. I'm a relatively new reader of his, but I find that he makes good sense and doesn't just write for specialists (i.e, the six people in the room who understand the topic as deeply as the writer does).

The intentions were good.

Maybe, maybe not.

It was a mistake to let them become so complicated only trained choirs could sing them.

Actually, don’t you think the propers would best be served by the choir/cantors and leave the ordinary and responses to the congregation? Why does the congregation have to sing EVERYTHING? Plus, the congregation should sing something that they can learn once and sing for many weeks. The propers change every week and it’s unrealistic to expect the congregation to sing them.

Well we have had 50 years of experience to learn differently so why not go back to what we were doing? The repertoire also logically supports this mentality.

And you’re saying it was a mistake to let the propers get complicated. I disagree. The propers should be more ornate and served by the musicians who can do them.

Actually, by the stipulation in the GIRM Musicians are allowed to pick “another appropriate chant”. So in that case, it comes down to the pastors willingness to go along with what the musician chooses.

And you’re still side stepping your comment about letting them become too difficult. You can’t have it both ways.

MarkB

Your stance plays both ways.

If you never offer the ability to sing excellent music nobody (that is worth their weight in musical notes) will come forward. In the last three churches I had a meager choir, but they were challenged by singing excellent music. If you never offer the opportunity, you will definitely not get any forces to support and grow the program. If you constantly dumb it down all you will ever get is dummies.

I’d rather have a good quartet than a mediocre ensemble of 12 or 16.

francis, it does cut both ways, as I myself know personally: when I have been in positions to decide whether to join a parish and its music program I was definitely put off by poor execution and/or small ensembles and thought, "No way would I join that horrible group." Quality attracts quality.

I would advocate what a_f_hawkins suggested: starting more simply with settings of propers that are within the reach of musicians, whether in Latin or English. Then using more complex settings and finally introducing the GR when choirs are ready for it and when people have been accustomed to singing propers instead of hymns.

The choir and music program I'm in right now are going through some discontent as the new pastor is steering the program toward more Latin and more authentic sacred music. Not even propers yet. I'm talking singing more Latin hymns and simpler chants, preferring traditional English hymns, and banning the more sentimental and unsophisticated OCP/GIA stuff that people in the parish have been used to for over ten years and dearly love. We've lost choir members and parishioners over it. Ignorant accusations of "Pre-Vatican II" and all that have been made by those leaving.

To return to this thread's original topic, changing people's mindsets about singing hymns at Mass is not easy. For over forty years most Catholics have mostly experienced GIA/OCP/G&P songs at Mass: music that has been fairly easy to perform and sing. I agree we should switch to singing propers and Latin. People have to be led there with catechesis (the topic of another current thread) by visionary priests and music directors, but it doesn't happen overnight. Few parishes have knowledgeable enough priests and music directors to make it happen, never mind the question of vocal talent in a volunteer choir, many of whose members love singing but don't have much formal musical training.

It might be a small victory, but it's mostly a pyrrhic victory, because it reinforces the idea that hymns are normal at Mass. It also reinforces the idea that you and I get to make up whatever fits for Mass because, in the long run, you and I control Mass. [Yes, the idea of control is very big in the P/W -- G/P ideology and was certainly part of the Bugnini agenda.]

Chris, unfortunately, the reality is that, within certain limits, we do get to choose.

I went through our "hymnal" and created a list of all the older hymns which I know. I did not include any of the G&P-type stuff which I do not like to sing. I gave the list to the volunteer organist (who isn't really an organist, of course) to use when choosing music for masses where I cantor (so far, generally feasts and holy days rather than Sundays). This is because she was just picking the music she likes and a lot of it was stuff I'd never heard before that she assumed I know, and I would end up sightreading (because no, we don't even have rehearsals except for a few minutes right before mass to go over the psalm).

The pastor had long since gone through the hymnal and struck out all of the anthropocentric/lateral songs, so even before I gave her my list, she was already choosing a fair number of the older hymns, because there are proportionally more of them available.

The point is, there is no music director. The organist is in charge of picking hymns by default. The pastor gave her one set of parameters. I gave her my own priorities, for when I'm cantoring. If I were willing, I could plan and choose and everyone would be happy, because she doesn't really want control either, and Father's way too busy. So the reality at my parish is: an imperfect human gets to pick according to her own tastes. But I may be at the only parish in America where nobody wants the power! :)

re: Sing LIke a Catholic. I don't want to create a scribd account. Is there somewhere else I can download this book?

I think some of the very difficult music, intended for choirs only, and beyond the capabilities of most congregations can create problems. It may be beautiful, but is it singable without a very good choir or ensemble? Art comes in all shapes and sizes and much of it isn't Gregorian. While it may be possible to develop to that level over time, you may find yourself unemployed if you start out with it. After 50+ years in music, I still find lengthy melismas to be the equivalent of Catholic yodeling. I hate them and that's a personal preference. Those likes and dislikes are an influence even if you are not aware of them. I am all for art, but we are talking worship not a performance stage. Plenty of "art" isn't worthy of God's house. That would probably include most Mozart.

Charles,

Personally speaking (and so Francis may pour Sulphur on my head, and so may you) I'm not interested in going back to some mythical golden age in the 1950's. I want to go forward to get out of the muck the Church is in right now. That way, the worst will be behind us, instead of waiting for us, up ahead. I think the way to do that is to promote what the Church has been telling us for years to do.... whether we've been doing it, well or badly.

CeciliaJulia,

I understand your point, but you may have missed mine, accidentally. Once one accepts that the liturgy isn't something we receive, then "choice" becomes corrosive of good liturgy, even as it become more and more popular and -- um.... -- driven by momentum or inertia or something like that. Sure, one can make better or worse choices of stuff other than what the Church required (until the so-called Vel Missal) for so long, but the point is that none of those choices arrive at what is proper (in both senses) for the Roman Rite. If one is choosing (as I've proposed in another thread) that it is possible to sing polyphonic music using the prescribed texts or Gregorian melodies (or in the case of some composers, polyphonic music based on those melodies), one is at least using the prescribed text, and exercising proper judgment. If, on the other hand, regulations notwithstanding, one starts from a blank slate, then whatever one chooses is more-or-less good, within the category of wrong answers. Thomas Day makes this point, and so does Peter Kwasniewski.

Chonak, thank you! I know there were a couple of documents I found referenced here or on the CMAA site that I could not find except on scribd. I was too tired at the time to post about them. (N.B. this may be the only one, I don't recall.) I will make an effort to identify any other docs only available on scribd and let you know.

Also, may I ask/suggest if any effort has been made to upload all of the public domain books and documents to the Internet Archive?

Chris,

In an ideal world, I could bang my gavel and say, "starting this Sunday" (which happens to be the first Sunday of the liturgical year) "we will follow the rubrics to the letter." Honestly, I wish that I had the energy to do just that. I really do.

Is there any parish in America which currently sings the contemporary version of the G&P four-song sandwich, with or without guitars and microphones, which would be pleased with that? The result would be me singing a capella and solo to a half-empty church--assuming that my pastor supported me fully.

Some might say "so be it," those are the rules, and argue tough cookies, and if you build it they will come, etc. I might even be one of those people. I'm not being sarcastic; I really wish I had the energy to take it on. (And N.B. that when I learn the EF with my pastor it will be exactly me singing solo in an empty half-empty chapel because it will be a weekday mass, and I hope to build a regular EF mass from that beginning.)

The reality is that the church is a human institution. We got here through human error. We have to get out of it in a way that takes human frailty into account. Perfection is of course always the goal. But we are fallen and imperfect. We have to manage what we have. And that means taking whatever reality we find on the ground, and working towards that goal in manageable steps.

As to whether human choices make bad liturgy, of course they do. I've been experiencing that my entire life, usually at the hands of "liturgical ministers." I have been viscerally revolted by many of their pronouncements. I have always felt intuitively that their musical choices degraded the liturgy. But what was I to do when the diocesan minister of the Office of Worship--who was earning a Ph.D. and teaching others--cited the USCCB, and the bishop himself seemed to support her choices, or at least not object to them?

And today I can't fault a woman who gives freely of her time and talent and is de facto in charge of choosing four songs for Sunday mass because she is following the rules as she has been taught them. That's not her fault. Until I found this website and forum a few short weeks ago, I thought she was following the rules, too. Now that I've been (am being) educated, I hope to teach her differently--and perhaps my pastor too. But I can't do that this week. It will take time. For now, nudging in the direction of restoring the dignity and majesty of the liturgy is what I am able to do, while I study and prepare to do more.

CGZ

I am not at all interested in “Going back” to a particular point in time either. What I am proposing is that we follow the Motu of 1904 as it truly is the gold standard (IMHO) of sacred music. No sulfur needed.

Also, you mentioned about a distinction between Protestant vs Catholic hymns. This is bogus. Hymns express faith. But (unless they are a zillion verses long) they do not express it in its fullness, and nor do they belong to a particular church. Instead, hymns may well have been written by people who were Catholic or Protestant at the time the hymn was written. But that is no guarantee that the hymn has fully and faithfully caught the lyricist's denominational leaning.

This has always been my intuitive understanding as well. I asked the question because I've seen a few comments in old threads suggesting that we should eschew "Protestant" hymns, with particular animus towards some well-known spirituals. I've never quite understood this animus. I grew up singing "Amazing Grace," for example, with the word "soul" substituted for "wretch" but I don't see what difference it makes. Yes, there is an overall Protestant sensibility, and I understand the Protestant emphasis on being "saved" by "grace alone" is, to our Catholic understanding, incomplete. But it's incomplete, not wrong. We all need grace, and it is indeed amazing.

Many older Protestant hymns are even less objectionable. They seem to me to be far less objectionable than the current crop of anthropocentric/lateral songs in current Catholic usage.

Perhaps someone could point me to an earlier thread (or an essay elsewhere) where this has been threshed out, rather than discussing it here. I didn't mean to open another can of worms.

CeciliaJulia,

The objection to Amazing Grace isn't often over the word wretch, at least around here. As one who stands to object nearly every time someone else proposes this hymn as a wonderful Catholic standard, I wish to clarify at least this much: GRACE, as Calvinists understand the term, must operate in this hymn, which makes it unacceptable for Catholic use.

You're right that much of the "current crop of anthropocentric/lateral songs" is objectionable, but only if the speaker has a Catholic sensibility. See my previous comments (on another currently active thread) about better or worse choices within the category of bad.

Francis has an excellent plan: make sure you have the support of your pastor, and plan a 5-yr strategy. Just make sure that, when you make your plan, you make quantum steps, so that if your pastor is reassigned, and progress stops, you've arrived at somewhere you can stop.

"Some might say "so be it," those are the rules, and argue tough cookies, . . ."

Well, since the adoption of the 1983 Code of Canon Law, congregants are more or less free to parish-shop, though it doesn't change their canonical domicile which can have a hook in certain sacramental situations, and the freedom can be effectively more limited in areas with wide distances between Catholic parishes. The other thing that changed is that pastors don't necessarily have a right to life tenure, but can be appointed for limited terms, so pastors and sheep both are moving parts.

Liam,

Did you mean "lift" or "life" tenure? If they're lifting tenure, whose are they lifting?

Cute! I presume it was a decision by the pastor. I don't know his rationale.

Re too-complex propers vs hymns:

According to the theology courses I attended, a Catholic mindset is both-and, not either-or. So, yes, we want propers - sometimes. We want hymns - sometimes - too. A wise pastor knows from observation that in places where most people actively engage with the music the Christian message seems to sink in more deeply. Hymns facilitate that more readily than propers.

Our music needs to reach the hearts of people who are marginally-churched, musically uneducated and in some cases illiterate. It also needs to reach the hearts of people who are well educated and have very refined sensibilities. And everyone in the middle.

Some will be able to achieve excellently-executed propers. Some will manage similar in hymnody. Some of us will do considerably less well. But God is kind and merciful and appreciates that we do the best we can with what we've got.