To call this an "abuse" would be a little over the top, I think, since it was for EF Low Mass. Have a look at Pius XII's document on sacred music - I think you'll find that hymns in the vernacular are permitted at Low Mass, although I've never seen anything like that at communion, in my experience.

To be honest, I think this (historically speaking) is how we've ended up with the musical mess that we're in at the moment. Pre Vatican II, I suspect that the vast majority of parishes (in at least some English-speaking countries) used the hymn sandwich at Low Mass. This is because Low Mass probably became the "normal form" (at least from the perspective of "custom"), and hymns were used to allow the people to participate musically. So the problem of "spoken Mass" is a LOT older than some people might think - at least in the West. Why don't we see such evolved traditions of hymn singing in the Eastern Rites of the Catholic Church? Simple: they don't (or at least didn't, until the 20th century), have anything equivalent to the Western Low Mass - every liturgy is supposed to be sung. They developed a tradition of the congregation singing the texts OF the liturgy, rather than simply singing AT the liturgy.

So what do I think happened after Vatican II? I think the these "Low Mass" parishes went to their nice new vernacular "Low Mass", except that they replaced their older hymns with things more "contemporary." I think that the "degrees of participation" that we see in Musicam Sacram were an attempt to gradually introduce musical participation to the degree of a fully sung Mass - with the EF, it's either all or nothing (OK - there were a few interesting little variants by 1962, but let's not go there...) - you either have Low Mass or Sung Mass. The new OF allows you to get to sung Mass in stages. To me, the whole approach taken seems to show an awareness of the prevalance of Low Mass and the difficulty in making the transition to Sung Mass. It seems as if Musicam Sacram is trying to take into account the "reality" of a "Low Mass" world, as it found it, and tries to make it possible for every parish to have Sung Mass to some degree. Perhaps this meant that not every Parish would be singing Propers, but maybe appropriate hymns, with a Sung Ordinary and everything else sung were considered an improvement - I don't know. Take this or leave it - it' s just my own theory.

Probably it was emotion that drove my response. I was so excited at first, and then disgusted that the schola was being asked to do less of the Church's music than we do now in the OF!

Struggles ahead.

I think Jeff should have responded, "Ok, Gather Us In, On Eagle's Wings, One Bread One Body and Let There be Peace on Earth. How's that for hymns?" :P

I wouldn't back down from the language of abuse. Legally it is not, just as it isn't in the OF. However, one should employ as high a model of church music as they are capable of. And when you have a schola trained in chant and polyphony available... hymns are an abuse.

I sometimes have the same reaction when subbing at Catholic parishes - "wait, you want me to do WHAT?"

Jeffrey,

Don't be too hard on yourself. Perhaps this was exactly the response (both content and delivery) that was needed.

I have to wonder if the person who approached you on this was aware of the work you've done at your own parish and in connection with CMAA. If they are, and they asked for this anyways, then they're being really absurd.

(This is the same kind of absurdity that attended, to my reading, a recent job posting where the instrument was a 2-manual Allen, and they wanted all candidates to submit repertoire lists and recordings of performances!)

Jeffrey, why not a missa cantata? I don't think the priest HAS to sing for that.

We just had our first EF Mass last week. I had been expecting a Missa Cantata all along, but it turns out that the priest, who has just learned the rite and is probably in his 40's, only felt ready to do the Low Mass. We in the just-formed schola were asked to sing at E, O, C, and R so we did some simple Latin chants. It was a votive Mass of the BMV so we did a version of Jesu Dulcis (with other words), Ave Maris Stella (the mode I), Ave Verum (both chant and motet by Mozart) and Ave Maria. It was a start. I just advised the parish music director that when the priest is ready we should do the chant Requiem first, because it's easy. I guess they had to borrow some altar boys from another parish --- and I think that at a low Mass, those are the only places you're allowed to sing. For an ordinary parish it's not easy to get started with the old rite. But the best thing was the turnout -- 200 enthusiastic people for the first time! By the way, there was no referee at the Mass -- good thing because both priest and musicians missed a couple of cues!

And yet that WAS the overwhelming experience of Catholics before the council. The High Mass was underattended and long, the Low Mass was attended by everyone because it was short. Very short. As in 50 minutes would have people complaining. My mother tells me her family always attended the High Mass, so it was by no means the only experience. And I'm sure there were hour-long Low Masses as well. But again the common experience is that people wanted to get their "obligation out of the way" and so they opted for a quick early Mass. Many of Pope Benedict's comments about the old Low Mass indicate that this was not even a distinctively American thing. And this same attitude has carried over into the Ordinary Form. The more we can do to squash it, the better.

Before the language becomes too confused, the basic point Jeffrey tried to make is this: no sense in going back to what was happening before Vatican II. The push for each of the participants in the Mass (Priest, schola, congregation) to assume its appointed role has been going on since Pius X and before. No sense in yet another incarnation of the four hymn sandwich. That's not progress in any direction.

Gavin, I can assure you beyond a doubt that, although I am sorry this was your mom's experience, to say this ("the Low Mass was attended by everyone because it was short") is false. As a matter of fact, many people avoid the Old Mass THESE DAYS because it is often longer. A few years ago, you may probably the Novus Ordo priests and Bishops in Germany were trying to develop an 8-minute Mass. I don't know if they succeeded or not, but you need to get your facts straight. You are absolutely free (and encouraged) to share your thoughts, but not make false blanket characterizations.

Did I say the EF is celebrated as a short Mass today? No. Why not? Because of the council.

That the "15 minute Low Mass" abuse existed is generally accepted. I'm only 22 so I wouldn't remember, but nearly everyone who recalls the Mass before Vatican II has said the same thing: "If you woke up early you got to go to the short Low Mass, if you woke up late you were punished by having to sit through High Mass with the sermon and the choir." Thomas Day says the same thing so I know it's not a Michigan phenomenon.

Why is the EF so long today? Because the people who attend it actually want to be there. An hour and a half is all the better because they recognize the beauty of it. I believe some use the term "intentional community" to describe this. They attend, many sing the responses and the ordinary. The EF is almost entirely attended by those who are not bothered by the length or beauty of the Mass. This was not the case 50 years ago, as common experience tells us.

It serves nothing to whitewash the history of American Catholicism so as to undermine the reforms of Vatican II. The fact that the EF is commonly NOT a 4-hymn short Low Mass is due to people carrying out the council's concern that every Mass be celebrated well. And the converse of that is that people who complain about long sermons, lots of long chants, and the like are doing so in opposition to Vatican II, both the letter and spirit of the documents.

Getting back to Jeffrey's original topic '4-hymn sandwich for the EF'. No (oh please, NO!) One can go anywhere to
hear that! EF should be new...a breath of fresh air. What is so extraordinary about the 4-hymn sandwich? Nothing.
What IS extraordinary are the sung propers & ordinaries. If they are thinking 'easier transition', I really don't believe
the PIP will miss the hymns. They choose to attend the EF because (I think) it's extraordinary. So why should the
music be ordinary! (I am so redundant, sorry)

However, a little historical note: Back in pre-Vat II days, many people grumbled not about Gregorian Chant per se, but the quality of the singing. The length of the Mass only seemed really long (& I recall people saying this) because the Credo went on & on & on & on. Poor singing & a very slow tempo Credo = yawns & squirms. The choir has got to
practice! Keep the tempos brisk if the tendency is to go flat. Choose the best soloists for the propers. Choose
simple ordinaries for the people to sing. And perhaps end with a traditional hymn (a la Now Thank We All Our God).

I am a great admirer of Jeffrey's Mass programs! (See his thread r/t this). For a blended Mass, they are absolutely
stunning. In our parish, our Men's Schola sings OF Gregorian Chant (propers & ordinaries) with prelude & postlude at times the seasonal latin Marian Hymn (Solemn & Simple). I sprinkle in an occasional hymn for seasonal variety. But we don't have the # & quality of singers to 'pull off' any polyphony.(The men are opposed to 'barbershop' as they call it). We only sing one Sunday/month to keep the quality high (very important) & keep the congregation asking for more!(Subversive but it works!) I never put in the bulletin when the schola will sing (even though some PIP have asked me to) because I want the regular folks to have the change to experience this. Many are surprised at how much they like it...many who perhaps would not go out of their way to attend. It's working! That's the important thing!

Jules, you're right. There are so many different experiences with pre-Vat II liturgy. I loved the High Mass. I was
there. And you're right about the 'good, bad and the ugly' stuff too. I could throw in the social & cultural upheavals of the 60s & we've got the road nobody wants to ever see again! (Unfortunately we're still living there in music ...SLJs et al).

Hopefully we can learn from the past & bring quality to the present & the future.

Sorry. I keep thinking EF = high Mass. (Probably because we have not progressed to EF in our parish) Forgot about low Mass. Variety is good! God bless!

1) Everyone should read (if they haven't yet) Thomas Day's books "Why Catholics Can't Sing" and "Where Have You Gone, Michaelangelo?". There is no universal perception of the pre Vat. II Mass - it's all parochial and cultural.

2) Rather than insist that 4-hymn EF Masses should not exist, try working with the absolute best of hymnody to make it as relevant as possible, including some chant melodies and some Latin.

I can recall reading T. Day's account of the preconciliar world and thinking that he was surely exaggerating the problems. In light of what I've seen and heard since the Motu Proprio, I'm thinking now that the problem was mine: I had overly idealized the preconciliar world. Now I can more clearly see the roots of where we are today. If you do heavily accompanied Mass ordinaries (not really chant!), Rossini-style propers, and a smattering of vernacular hymns, you end up with a package is not all that different from the typical Mass in parishes today. Today it is a big groovier and less romantic but this is just a gradient of style issue. As Arlene put it to me the other day, this whole approach to liturgical music has no teeth. It is just a big comfy mush. From one mush to another mush.

William Mahrt wrote in his first editorial after Summorum that an important priority we have is to protect new EF Masses from repeating mistakes of the past. When he first sent it to me, I wondered why he was so focussed on this point. Now I know.

Jules,

I think you miss Jeffrey's main point, which is that there's a tendency to see pre-conciliar worship through rose-tinted spectacles, and assume that good practice must follow a renewed focus on tradition; but it ain't necessarily so.

A question for clarification: I've only ever had the opportunity to attend an EF Mass (that I can remember) at the colloquium last year, so I have a very beautiful mental image of the EF Mass. But, is it correct to assume that at a 'low Mass', it is not permissable to sing anything but the four hymns? It seems to me that I can remember something Dr. Mahrt mentioned at the colloquium last summer about the fact that all Masses that are not sung entirely are 'low Masses'. Forgive me, Dr. Mahrt, if I have that wrong. I'm just wondering what is allowed and what is not allowed at a 'low Mass'.

As to 'what parts the priest must sing' at a Missa Cantata:

All the greetings (Dominus vobiscum), all the Orations, the Gospel, the intonations of the Gloria and Credo, the Preface (and the preceding short greetings), the Pater Noster. (And all the short items at the end of the Mass excepting the greetings before the Last Gospel.)

Most likely place to find the OFFICIAL word: in the Roman Missal (1962.)

Jules, you are correct the Low Mass had its beginnings in the Middle Ages, but the "rise" of the Low Mass comes from the 18th century, which was also a time when chant practices had really really gotten rather strange in some places. The revolution of Solesmes was in reaction to this situation.

I think the vast majority of pew-sitters have their own, personal, spiritual reasons for preferring the EF. Many of the older crowd probably prefer a reverent but spoken Mass, especially when compared to the typical OF. The younger crowd, including many younger families, have similar reasons centered around reverence, focus, orthodoxy, etc. Most seem to accept singing some music, while some prefer to read along in their Missals every word that is being whispered in the Sanctuary. Those who do sing along with the hymnody also realize that, at a High Mass, they will either have much more to sing, in Latin (and they don't mind that) or they will do even more listening to the choir and schola (nor do they mind that - they understand the real "active participation".)

I would love to help musically with at least a monthly Missa Cantata, even if I have to chant the Propers by myself and use the Ordinary that most of the people know. I settle for hymnody at a Low Mass because I know that with my love and understanding of hymnody, and my confidence in the congregation's ability and acceptance, this music "sung AT the Mass" can be as relevant as possible - and a beautiful thing in itself, even if less than the perfect Liturgy.

IOW, I believe it is musicians who have the greatest problem with the whole concept of the "4 hymn Mass". While I'm all for bringing congregations up to the next step, I'm even more for having more EF Masses - period!

As I've recommended before, everyone involved in the "reform of the reform", especially in the USA, needs to read Thomas Day's "Why Catholics Can't Sing". Many of your questions will be answered. The bottom line is that there was no universal approach to the music AT or OF the Mass. Some congregations sang number of Ordinaries (Gregorian); others had choirs who did so, and also polyphony; still others almost never had High Masses. Some had a wide variety of hymns, both Latin and English at their Low Masses; others had just a couple of dozen that rotated; still others had small choirs sing EVERYTHING!

In re-introducing Gregorian chant Ordinaries, I would recommend 1) using the organ, but only as accompaniment (see other discussions), having a small group who can lead the congregation (or even chant by themselves the first couple of times), and introduce the easier melodies first, even if you end up mixing/matching parts from different Ordinaries and the "ad lib" section of the Kyriale.