Are processional chants required?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    From the GIRM for the USA:

    47. When the people are gathered, and as the Priest enters with the Deacon and ministers, the Entrance Chant begins. Its purpose is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical time or festivity, and accompany the procession of the Priest and ministers.

    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.

    If there is no singing at the Entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the Priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. no. 31).
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • VEL.....

    The chant is required, except that it's not. It's required to be sung, except when it's not. When it's not sung, the text or an adapted explanation of it, is required.

    How are these binding in any way?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    Yes. Just not the way you'd prefer.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,981
    CGZ - in the same way as a speed limit is binding. You are free to drive at a range of speeds, but there are rules. And it is clear when you are violating the rules. (But people still do it!)
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,308
    Liam, when you ask whether it's required, what action are you asking about?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    The GIRM sets for requirements for what is sung or said accompanying the entrance rite. *I* didn't ask anything. I merely provided the extract of what is provided for in those requirements.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    The chant is required, except that it's not.


    Yup. And to call "Praise to the Lord"/Stralsund an "entrance chant" is to call a cat a dog.

    Don't get me wrong: I like PTTL a lot!! But it's not Chant.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    "chant" was used because of the LA-inspired decision to use a cognate crutch to "cantus"; that it was not intended to be interpretedly narrowly was confirmed back when we went through the RM3 roll-out. If it were interpreted narrowly, then no Palestrina, Lassus or Victoria, et cet.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 8,308
    I asked, Liam, because I wanted to get an understanding of the question in the thread title.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,981
    Surely the question in the thread title, including the meaning of "chant", is clearly set out in the OP's lengthy question of January 9th.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    cognate crutch to "cantus"


    "Song" works better, of course. Another case of over-thinking from the cognoscenti.
    Thanked by 1Liam
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 171
    I really don’t see what’s so confusing about what the GIRM says. You must either recite the Entrance Antiphon, or sing it or something else suitable instead. You make this more complicated than it needs to be.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 823
    The confusion is what constitutes 'something else suitable'. I used to be of the opinion that whatever was in the hymnal (whichever hymnal was used at the church I was at) would be suitable. The more I learned about sacred music, the more I came to realize that many of the pieces in most hymnals, including many of my favorite pieces, are wholly inappropriate for the Mass. So, as in most things Catholic, nothing is as simple as we either think or want it to be. Nothing with a two thousand year history can be.
    Thanked by 2Earl_Grey CHGiffen
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,981
    Not just 'something else suitable' but the text of which has been approved. Our hymnal has no blanket approval, it contains texts which have been approved but does not note which these are.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    You make this more complicated than it needs to be.


    No, dear Sponsa: the "reformers" made it more complicated than it needs be. Here on Earth, we're trying to reconcile their "reforms" with "reality." Not that easy to do.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    You make this more complicated than it needs to be.


    It's a gift. I think reforms are determined by competent ecclesiastical authority, not by every grumbler who didn't get his way.

  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    by competent ecclesiastical authority


    Ecclesiastical authority, yes. Competent? Errmmmmnnnn......

    Sure!! Bugnini & Co. were "competent." But in the wrong direction. Writing a Mass on a cocktail napkin while pleasanty plotzed.......errmmmmmmmmmnnnnn
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    Forget Bugnini. It was the supposed saint, Paul VI who approved it all. Can you argue the pope had no authority when he approved something you don't like?
  • Dad, et al,

    "Competent" doesn't mean "highly" or even "adequately skilled" in this context.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    But, unlike any of us, they are ecclesiastical authority.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,981
    Competent
    i) (of a person) efficient and capable.
    "a highly competent surgeon"
    ii) acceptable and satisfactory, though not outstanding.
    "she spoke quite competent French"
    iii) (of a court or other body) accepted as having legal authority to deal with a particular matter.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    Never argued that Paul VI did not have the authority. However, that does not prevent me and others of good will from arguing that what he did sprung from extremely poor judgment and should be seriously revised. And soon.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    One of the problems with the papacy, especially from an eastern perspective, is that there is no longer an emperor to yank the pope's chain when he wanders too far.

  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    Ahh....the good old days with Charlemagne.

    IIRC, your last Emperor died quite a bit before Charlie the Great, ain'a? So how could you remember that?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    The last emperor in the east would have been in the 1500-1600 era. I would say the emperors in the east lost power for any practical purpose in the west by the 9-10th century, or so it seems to me. As late as the 20th century, Franz Joseph of Austria overturned the election of a pope, which he had a right to do. This allowed Pius X to become pope.

    The development of the papacy into a semi-divine monarchy is a later invention. It was not good for the papacy, the church, or the state. Thankfully, we have overcome that, although it seems the papacy is now driving itself into irrelevancy (do I hear ultramontanny screams of anguish in the background?)
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    The last emperor in the east would have been in the 1500-1600 era


    Constantinople went Muslim around 1450 or so. The Hapsburgs exited in the very early 1800's.

    Hyperueberpapolatry is, indeed, a problem which is rapidly receding as Francis I attempts to demolish papal credibility.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 1,981
    No not the early 1800's. Blessed Karl of Austria (beatified 2004); reigned 21 November 1916 – 11 November 1918 and in April 1919 formally dethroned by the Austrian Parliament .
  • Hawkins,

    Just goes to show that Parliaments aren't infallible.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    I think the daughter of the last Byzantine emperor married the Russian Tsar. I remember that from somewhere. I was told that was their basis for Russia being the Third Rome.

    Hapsburgs are still alive and well, But they lost the thrones of Austria and Hungary after World War I.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    Sophia Palaiologos was a grandaughter of Emperor Manuel II (r. 1391-1425), and she married Grand Prince Ivan III of Moscow, of the Rurikid dynasty that ended in the Time of Troubles, before the Romanovs. Her father Thomas was the last real Despot of Morea, and younger brother of Emperors John VIII and Constantine XI.

    And the Hapsburgs were, considering what happened to many of their peers, a relatively fortunate family. That fortune has been secured by letting any future pretense to a throne expire. Had anyone thought the family was reconsidering that, the former Crown Prince Otto would have have received as warm a farewell as he was given after his death. Monarchy is like the blessing for the tsar in A Fiddler on The Roof: May G_d bless and keep monarchy - far away from us!
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 10,510
    I have heard that blessing used for some of the bishops, as well.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,049
    And music directors, too. And choristers and PIPs.
  • dad29
    Posts: 1,902
    The Hapsburgs exited in the very early 1800's.


    Should have been clearer: they exited the position of "Holy Roman Emperor" at that time, but did, indeed, remain on the throne of Austro-Hungary until much later.

    Interesting side-note: no one has yet spoken up "pro Papa"........