I can give no assured answer as to whether the processional chants are required, but there have been numerous instances in my career when I sincerely wished they weren't. So often in those parishes where I labored as organist and choir director, there seemed to be an understanding that entrance, offertory, communion processions were moments when the congregation (not just the choir) had to sing no matter how ably the organist alone could enhance the liturgical action.

Sadly, that I thought such rigidity was nonsense never seemed to carry much weight.

I think a good start would be to paint a larger picture than just the "legal" requirements - to move beyond minimalism, if you will. From a "technical" or "legal" standpoint, you're correct - none of the propers has to be sung (or any part of the mass, for that matter). But if the question moves from "what is required" (too often reduced to "what is the least I can do?") to "What does the nature of the mass (as it has been traditionally understood) ask for?" or, "What is the ideal?" then things start opening up. There has to be a fundamental shift from legal to liturgical.

Of course the other side of this question is "Are the resources I have up to the challenge?" Simply singing-the-antiphons-no-matter-what (as Randolph Nichols describes) is ultimately self-defeating, as is singing (hymns) for the sake of singing. One of the best decisions I made at a modestly-endowed parish where I worked was to eliminate the hymns at offertory and communion and play organ music at these times. I did not replace them with antiphons, though I planned to do so eventually (and in fact the music director there is doing now). I figured that the congregation was not ready for a full-on chant mass, even with simple chants at all the usual spots.

It's largely a matter of educating the pastor. If you can open their eyes to the fullness of the liturgy and what it really demands, there can be a concerted effort in this direction. If the attitude is how little can we do or let's not do too much, it's very, very difficult to strive, let alone reach, anything approaching the ideal. Only an ideal can inspire; fulfilling a legal framework is death.

In the OF (which I assume is the intended context here, but I note it in case my assumption is wrong), the Offertory is a further odd case: the rubrics provide that the Prayers Over The Gifts are only offered aloud and with congregational dialogue IF there is no music (a rubrical point often ignored in practice). While that doesn't mean that, if those prayers are offered aloud and in dialogue, there ought to be no offertory music, in practice one can see that the ritual dimensions of that moment can feel different depending on the choices made and the rules observed (or not).

I've frequently heard expressed that the music shouldn't be too long at the Offertory, exactly so that the priest can say those words out loud. Some people cherish them and want to hear them. This is the exact converse of the rubric, of course.

Technically in the novus ordo the entrance and communion antiphons in the Missal must be read if there is no singing. At the offertory, the offertory prayers may be read out loud if there is no singing. Singing is therefore optional at all these places.

We sing an entrance hymn, psalm, communion proper, communion hymn and recessional in addition to the mass ordinary. I cut out the offertory hymn years ago and use that time to either play or give the choir time to sing an anthem. A little silence at communion is a good thing, I think. I cut out the offertory hymn after a lady said, "you are singing us to death!" Four hymns seems at least one too many.

I used Ms Pluth’s Hymn Tune Introits for about 6 months in a parish just discovering that the propers were a thing. They were well appreciated by all, and they’d be right at home in your church @a_f_hawkins. Best hopes that you can persuade the local authorities toward their use!

Jared,

I am inclined to agree with you, and I believe that a more strict adherence to the principles of Musicam sacram would especially benefit small parishes with limited resources. Say there's no choir or musician at all: the priest could still sing the Mass with the dialogues and Ordinary unaccompanied. He would recite the Entrance and Communion antiphons according to the rubrics. The parish wouldn't even need to purchase any pew resources outside a simple Order of Mass. Such a Mass would be beautiful in its simplicity.

"Is this better than silence?" is an excellent question we should all ask ourselves. Of course, this is all in a perfect world where we could institute these principles from the ground up. Too often the political reality is that we are in a situation where the Mass has little of Tier 1, some of Tier 2 and all of Tier 3 sung by the congregation. In that case, we are faced with improving Tier 3, and adding Tier 1, which is really backwards. I'd love for a bishop to one day announce that from hereafter, all clergy are to abide by those principles in Musicam sacram - provided that pay for the musician is guaranteed when it becomes a no-music-at -all Mass once the celebrant starts reciting the Greeting!

Partial-agree with you, Ralph. Some on this Forum have dismissed MS as "irrelevant" because "previous to current IG." So.....toss that damn baby WITH the bathwater!!

Give the demi-Protestants a hymn to keep them happy. The recessional. If they don't sing the Creed, then they have to stay and sing the (12-verse) recessional hymn. Please open your books...........

Heh.

I have pointed out that the directives of GIRM supersede MS.

Sure enough! Now convince the flat earthers.

I don't see why the congregation couldn't join in the GR melodies, if they're presented properly.

the directives of GIRM supersede MS

Minor point: if the above is true, then MS, in fact, IS irrelevant.

We note that Progressives declare their virtue in all forums *coughCharles* and risk being wrong in all of them too.

dad29 - MS has 69 paragraphs, only four, §28-§31, are superseded by GIRM, and they are mostly incorporated into GIRM. The principles set out in the other parts are still relevant.

The first editio typica IGMR seems to be here courtesy of Rorate Coeli.

Of course you remember. You can't be old enough for memory loss - says the person who couldn't find his cell phone last week. LOL. It didn't work out because parts of the liturgy (propers, anyone?) were not translated until 9 years later. Other materials were rushed into publication too soon. The process was half-done, slipshod and not tested beforehand. Had it been done with more care and had more thought been put into it, then it would have had a better chance of not being mediocre.

parts of the liturgy (propers, anyone?) were not translated until 9 years later

ICEL produced a translation of GS only a year after it was published, but AFAIK there is still no official translation of the antiphons in GR, except were they are identical with RM, so no Offertories. ICEL had an antiphonal ready in 1997, but it has never been published.

a-f-hawkins, aren't you in England? If so, you realize the U.S. does things differently, at times.

Not that I know of. I use Fr. Webber's at times and also R. Rice compositions.

GIRM is not so explicit, and thus MS still applies. The only mention is at the Offertory, GIRM§142 - "... If, however, there is no Offertory Chant and the organ is not played, ..."

Dad,

Proper care of the liturgy is supremely important to the work of evangelizing the world, for it says "this is how seriously we take the worship of the God we preach."

Dad,

Preaching the Word in His entirety is, of course, an important aspect, but if that preaching is accompanied by the Hootenanny Mass..... the impact of the preaching is transformed into that of a boomerang. Likewise, if we preach the whole truth, but still allow (nay, encourage) communion in the hand, girl altar boys, much of the modern musical repertoire..... we saw off the branch on which we are sitting.

Dad,

Last time I had contact with the Missouri Synod Lutherans, they treated the ELCA like strangers from another planet, and the Wisconsin Synod Lutherans treated the Missouri Synod like they were Unitarian Universalists. On the other hand, do you notice any of these branches of Lutheranism actually growing?



Mind you, none of these ecclesial communities actually have a sacrificing priesthood or Christ Himself really present in their (non-existent) tabernacles. Actors sell movie tickets, but God and His Church offer us the Cross.

Dad,

If our administrator wishes us to take this off-line, I'm happy to continue this by PM, but let me see if I can address your point more directly:

Since the non-Catholic "churches" aren't actually bringing people closer to God, but only selling a kind of identity, people who wish to be affirmed in their identity and entertained are drawn to this sort of place. They're not worshipping God, or even trying to, or imparting God's law, except in the theatrical sense. People who are drawn to "what makes me feel good" go there.

And, judging by KTOTV, if you are in Paris you may also continue to play full-bore organ pieces during Lent; during the Offertory and Communion processions (and for much of the Introit). I suppose that's another beating-a-dead-horse thread topic. Watching the Masses online, I have to say I really enjoy the organ processionals, even during Lent. But my more legal-minded side says that it would be more ideal liturgically if their professional schola chanted from the Graduale with verses during the major processions (at least during Lent).

The entrance chant (in some form) is part of the Introductory Rites and as such, is required, even if it’s just spoken.