SttL vs. GIRM; some inconsistencies
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    I have an interesting problem. Last Sunday, the pastor announced, via his bulletin article, that "the Parish Council has undertaken to study carefully the contents of [SttL], and to reflect deeply ont he issue of music here [at this parish]. . .We are hoping that . . . the Council will have a plan in place, with specific recommendations, to present to your pastor and his staff for implementation."

    I have been asked to contribute brief articles with commentary on a regular basis in the bulletin, and that by itself poses both an opportunity and a problem. The opportunity is one of education; the problem is I'm not sure what the Council is going to see as important, or indeed what they may read into the many equivocations we've all recognized in the document.

    I take the two following examples. Because of some discussions regarding psalmody on another thread, I decided to see what SttL and GIRM had to say, and found this troubling inconsistency:

    GIRM: (61, para. 4) "In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung . . .including psalms arranged in metrical form, provided they have been approved by the USCCB or the diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial psalm."

    SttL: (158) ". . . including psalms. . ." etc. BUT Para. 159 goes on to say, "Songs or hymns THAT DO NOT AT LEAST PARAPHRASE a psalm may never be used in place of the responsorial psalm." (Sorry for the all-caps emphasis. I don't know how to make italics or underline here).

    The inconsistency is blatant. The US Bishops gave themselves permission to wiggle around the strict metrical translation issue, a permission not found in GIRM. This also begs an unusual question. . . aren't hymns by definition metrical? So, I can use a metrical translation, but I can't use that translation with a hymn melody, which is the only way you can sing a metrical translation? I've got a DMA in music and I'm confused!

    Example 2: My associate DM raised the question of whether or not a musical setting of the Agnus can be repeated with invocations other than "Lamb of God" or "Agnus Dei." She said she thought the American documents permitted it, and that GIRM was unclear. You tell me:

    GIRM: (83, para. 3) "This invocation accompanies the fraction and, for this reason, may be repeated as many times as necessary until the rite has reached its conclusion, the last time ending with the words "dona nobis pacem."

    SttL: (188) [The above sentence appears in its entirety]. The next sentence reads, "When the Agnus Dei is sung repeatedly as a litany, CHRISTOLOGICAL INVOCATIONS WITH OTHER TEXTS CAN BE USED. In this case, the first and final invocations are always "Agnus Dei" (Lamb of God).

    Again, the inconsistency is too blatant. Isn't this just the type of liturgical abuse Rome has been trying to erradicate via documents like "Liturgiam Authenticam" and "Redemptionis Sacramentum"? It would appear that the Bishops are granting permission to do what Rome is trying to put to an end.

    I really want to warn the pastor against permitting people on the Pastoral Council who have the best of intentions but lack the proper knowledge (careful study of all of the documents, especially the curial and legislative documents) to be rendering opinions, let alone making specific recommendations regarding the music to be used in the liturgy of the parish. While I want to do this with all charity, I also want to prevent them from making a confused situation even worse.

    The stakes are high. Any suggestions?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I don't find SttL inconsistent to the GIRM as regards psalms. GIRM says "hymns or songs may not replace". SttL clarifies this as only applicable to songs or hymns which do not paraphrase a psalm. Same with the Agnus Dei: GIRM only says "this invocation", but does not specify that it must be "agnus dei". SttL clarifies (unfortunately) that other Christological invocations can be substituted. Now this DOES, however, contradict Sacrosanctam Concillium which states that no one may alter the words of the Mass even if he should be a priest. So unless you have your bishop writing those "other Christological invocations", you're modifying the Mass, even as a layman! So SttL DOES contradict SC. But technically it does not contradict GIRM.

    I would say get the review of SttL out of your Parish Council's hands - NOW!!! As you said, it's not that they're too stupid to read it and figure out what it says, but they aren't musicians, they don't know the whole picture, and it's not their job to do so! Honestly, that'd be "the hill I die on" in my parish, as I'd find it a breach of confidence in my capacity as Music Director. If your boss just wants wider input, maybe have a study session with your choir, or invite the congregation to a study session. But don't let the uninformed, however well-meaning, say what the document does and doesn't do. After all, no one would let a layman give a sermon, would they? (yes, I did mean that as a joke)
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    What leaders do in moderation the followers will do in excess. That includes outright rebellion.
  • Cantor
    Posts: 84
    I was a bit disappointed to see that psalm paraphrase thing in SttL; IMO, it needs quite a bit more clarification. There definitely need to be limits; would we allow, for example, the quite loose Isaac Watts psalm paraphrases?

    My paranoid side suspects lobbying from the publishers on that one. GIA has a lot invested in their gender-neutered Haugen/Haas psalm-song repertoire and would probably have been loath to see the bishops specifically mandate exclusive use of approved texts.

    I still am just going to stick with Guimont and Gelineau and the occasional R&A. It simplifies planning greatly, and the responsorial psalm then has a very distinct character in the Mass.
  • bsven
    Posts: 20
    Mr. Andrew: re the Psalm issue. YES. GIRM clearly states that the Psalm should be taken from the lectionary, and should be the Psalm of the day. In my book, this eliminates all paraphrases. We do not paraphrase the Epistle or OT reading, and the resp. Psalm is clearly in the same category--straight out of the Lectionary. I am not aware of any "metrical" settings of the translations from the Lectionary, but if they exist, they are allowed, because the issue is the translation of the text, not the style of music. However, this past summer, at a retreat at the Liturgical Institute at Mundelein, in our final Mass we used a paraphrased resp. Psalm that had been set to music by the choir director of the seminary. I raised the issue of whether this was allowed, and they all looked at me as if I was crazy. So...maybe I am.
    But the larger issue for me--and it is pressing, as I am meeting with my priest tomorrow to discuss STTL-- is: which has precedence for us: Musicam Sacram or STTL? MS lays out a clear plan for progressive solemnity, and we are at the point in our parish that I am ready to encourage my priest to chant the dialogues, collects, and maybe even the Eucharistic Prayer. But he is a man of the book, and I need to be able to tell him that MS is binding before he will do this. Can someone help me out here?
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Well, STTL actually cites MS, which is great, because MCW pretty well pretended that MS didn't exist. MS has been off the radar for decades, and now it suddenly returns.

    I'm sure someone can comment on the status of MS as it relates to STTL.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Wow. Tread carefully. Remember. You are the hired help! Whose 'book' is he a man of? Rome or America? If it's Rome, MS. If it's America STTL.
  • marymezzomarymezzo
    Posts: 236
    MS is a magisterial document. STTL is merely an advisory, prepared by a committee of USCCB. It is *not* church law for the United States.

    MS must take precedence.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    Marymezzo's got it right, in my book.

    Here are the major difficulties I raise with respect to SttL regularly, even with the guy in black who signs my check:

    1) SttL is a set of guidelines, not legislative, AND it has not been subjected to the process of recognitio from the Holy See;

    2) According to information I've read both here and on other sites, SttL shares much in common with a document sent to Rome for recognitio in November of 2006, namely, the Directory for Music in the Liturgy, a document I've never seen, nor heard of until recently. If it hasn't received formal recognitio from the Holy See, and it appears likely that it won't, my opinion is that it calls into question the validity of SttL;

    3) In my more recent studies of SttL, after discovering the discrepancies described above, I have to wonder just how deep and wide the equivocations go. I've got as one of my goals for the next several weeks to go through SttL, and do a side-by-side comparison with it and the curial documents to which it refers, to make absolutely certain there are no more serious liberties taken either with quotations or interpolations as compared to the ratified Roman documents from which the quotations are taken.

    4) We do ourselves no favors if in the process of "implementing" SttL we leave unanswered the truly important core issues of music in the liturgy, and most especially if we permit regression to happen in the process. To my way of thinking, the Roman documents will always trump the American documents, absent recognitio.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    I totally agree with you. I am just saying that if the priest does not WANT to follow the Roman docs, there is very little you can do to change that attitude without putting your job at risk. I am just saying this because I got the "heave ho" instead of the bogus docs when I challenged the status quo.

    The reason they wrote SttL is to 'interpret' the Roman docs to begin with. It's the same strategy as VII. It's just another way to escape the REAL docs and have an excuse (as lame as it is).
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    Francis,

    At this point, I don't plan on putting my job at risk.

    There is a very interesting dynamic with respect to music going on in my parish. A heretofore marginal "contemporary" group has, over the course of the last 6 months, become progressively more visible. They had just been playing for 2 Sundays a month (3 when a 5th Sunday occurred), but then they helped with the parish mission in November, then they played for one of the Christmas morning Masses, all at my invitation. Originally I did this out of a need to seem "cooperative and open to different musical expressions." However, it's turned out to play in my favor, as more and more people are objecting to the loud, and blatantly pop-rock oriented music the volunteer director has introduced, despite my instructions to the contrary. This has set what I have been doing with the choir and the music at the other liturgies in stark contrast with what they are doing. The pastor is unable (or unwilling for political reasons) to resolve the issue, and the pastoral council has decided to take up the larger issue of what the documents have to say about music in liturgy. He may have unwittingly placed the issue in the hands of the people who, while lacking the depth of knowledge needed to make the important decisions, may just end up making the right choices even if for the wrong reasons, and put an end to the contemporary music in this parish.

    So, this is an opportunity to turn the tides and make some serious inroads with respect to both educating the leadership and implementing some elements that would set the parish in the right direction musically.

    By the way, my comparisons and quotations above were taken from the GIRM as approved for the dioceses of the United States, not Musicam Sacram or any other "per se" Roman document. Rome already put quite a few concessions in for the American churches, so why do the bishops feel the need to take even more liberties? It all becomes so terribly self-serving.

    I was intrigued to read Helen Hull Hitchcock's article from the Online edition of Adoremus Bulletin (vol. XIII, no. 8; November 2007), where she lists the names of the advisors to the BCL subcommittee on music, and with the exception of Leo Nestor, it's all the usual suspects: John Foley, SJ (St. Louis Jesuits, Composer's Forum), Robert Batastini (then VP, now retired, of GIA), Anthony Ruff, OSB (Lit Press) and J. Michael McMahon (Pres. of NPM). Even WITH Dr. Nestor, doesn't this deck seem a bit stacked?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    david:

    I am glad you are confident and 'hunkered in'. It will be interesting to hear how your collaboration with your pastor unfolds.

    The stacked decks are why I had cloistered myself up for so many years. (One day I will share my four page letter from Marty Haugen from 1992 or so). When I found CMAA, I thought I had died and gone to heaven. Having so many colleagues who stand for the truth has reinvigorated my aspirations as a musician of the Church.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,204
    Francis,

    I'd be interested in knowing more about the exchange you had with Haugen. It sounds interesting, especially as I'm in the Twin Cities area, home of Haugen, Haas AND Joncas!
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    The long and short of it is that I contested one of his works (Song at the Center) which was in a GIA hymnal back in the early 90's as one that had its text based in Creation Spirituality. My delivery was a side by side comparison with one of Matthew Fox's books. His four page letter was one justifying the work as 'cultural'. I never responded back, and in the next edition the hymn no longer appeared. Death by silence. Don't know if it ever came back, but if you do a google on it you will see it online.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Where is a clear and reasonable guide to what may and may not be done...on the following matters:

    Responsorial Psalm

    Which psalm should be sung - as assigned in the Lectionary?
    Who made that assignment?
    What may be substituted?
    What are the specific rules for the substitution of a Psalm for the assigned Lectionary Psalm?

    And, what can we purchase and put in the hands of the people that does not show the assigned Lectionary Psalm and raise the question of validity in their minds if we do not sing the assigned lectionary psalm?

    Or is there nothing and must we publish our own to solve this problem.

    And, as long as we are on the subject, what other readings in the Mass may be chosen rather than following the lectionary.

    And does the lectionary follow the Ordo...

    Thanks...

    noel at sjnmusic.com
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Which psalm should be sung - as assigned in the Lectionary?
    I’m not sure I understand what you’re asking here, but yes, the “ideal” is the responsorial psalm appointed for the day in the Lectionary.
    Who made that assignment?
    I believe Lucien Deiss had a lot to do with the selection of responsorial psalm texts in the Order of Readings for the post-V2 Mass. My understanding (possibly inaccurate) is that while the genre of the responsorial psalm was a restoration from ancient practice, the actual psalm texts selected were chosen anew with little historical precedent; obviously, though, many points in the liturgical year have “obvious” psalms to sing: Advent = Pss. 25, 80, 85; Christmas = Ps. 98; Epiphany = Ps. 72; Mary = Ps. 45; etc.
    What may be substituted?
    The graduals from the Roman Gradual or the Simple Gradual, or other songs that carry episcopal approval such as By Flowing Waters, Psallite, etc. Also, the verses may use 1963 Grail instead of the Lectionary’s text, since that psalm translation is used in the Liturgy of the Hours, and it would make no sense to approve it for one part of the liturgy and not for the other. My understanding is that, at this point, it is not “kosher” to use the popular psalm paraphrases (e.g. Haas “The Lord is My Light and My Salvation”) as responsorial psalms.
    What are the specific rules for the substitution of a Psalm for the assigned Lectionary Psalm?
    I’m again not sure what you mean here. Either the seasonal refrains with proper verses, or the seasonal psalms, may be used in place of the proper psalms.
    And, what can we purchase and put in the hands of the people that does not show the assigned Lectionary Psalm and raise the question of validity in their minds if we do not sing the assigned lectionary psalm?
    A booklet that the parish itself would print? I don’t really know here. It would be worthwhile, IMO, to make a congregational “Graduale Populorum” with introit hymns, responsorial psalms, and communion antiphons in the vernacular for Sundays of the entire year. I don’t imagine it would sell well enough, though, for any publisher to give such a project serious consideration.
    And, as long as we are on the subject, what other readings in the Mass may be chosen rather than following the lectionary.
    None. The Lectionary occasionally gives various options, e.g. for Pentecost or Holy Family.
    And does the lectionary follow the Ordo...
    The Lectionary is a “realization” of the Order of Readings (“Ordo lectionum Missæ”), a book that contains Scripture references, responsorial psalm refrains, and Gospel verses for the Mass.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,605
    Felipe,

    Thank you. I realize that some of this is well-answered in the introduction to By Flowing Waters...with print on demand now available, it might be possible to do a Graduale Populorum....thanks again.

    noel
  • priorstf
    Posts: 460
    Is it just on my IE browser that use of "block" quotes deletes the leading characters of subsequent lines? In this case by the time the series of 7 block quotes was used the subsequent postings are almost useless.
Add a Comment