Anglican Chant Propers
  • Pax vobis.

    Is there such a thing as Propers of the Mass in Anglican Chant? If so, do you have any examples of what it looks like?
    I have the feeling most Anglicans have used plainsong when composing for the Mass propers (with, it must be said, remarquable taste, quality and splendor). But it seems to me the same thing does not exist with Anglican chant. Am I wrong?
  • I have frequently set the propers to Anglican chant. These are especially appropriate on solemnities, weddings, and other important feast days. For the introit I set the antiphon to AC and the psalm verses to a Gregorian tone. For the Resp. Ps. I set the verses to AC with a newly composed chant-like responsory for the people. I can see that this might be as effective in French as well as in English. I don't know how to put examples up here on the Forum, but could mail you some if you wish.

    MERRY CHRISTMAS!
    JOYEUX NOEL!
  • Thanks for the answer. I would be delighted to see some examples of this.

    By the way, why the Resp. Ps. instead of the Gradual?

    Merry Christmas (a bit in advance)!
  • Jehan -
    I do also put the Gradual to AC. I also offer the Resp. Ps. for those whom I know will not sing the Gradual. In my (unfortunate) experience it is wise to provide both. Since most people by far use the Resp. Ps. it is good to provide them with good music for it.
    If you wish to e-mail me your address, I shall send you a few samples of AC propers.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • I'd be curious to experience how AC works in French.

    I've tried setting English to falsobordoni, because Anglican Chant is, well, Anglican. And I've come to the conclusion that I'd have been better off with AC, because psalm tones and the falsobordoni they're based on are so keyed to Latin accentuation. French might work better, but perhaps not.
  • I'd be curious to experience how AC works in French.

    I've tried setting English to falsobordoni, because Anglican Chant is, well, Anglican. And I've come to the conclusion that I'd have been better off with AC, because psalm tones and the falsobordoni they're based on are so keyed to Latin accentuation. French might work better, but perhaps not.


    Jeffrey Quick,

    I don't necessarily wish to "gallicanize" Anglican Chant. I mean, if some people do it, that is fine, but I would prefer French plainsong. As you said, Anglican Chant is, well, Anglican (in other terms, "English", according to the etymology). But I was curious about Anglican Chant, of which I know little to nothing, but which sounds gorgeous. ^^

    On the other hand, there is a great tradition of French "faux-bourdons", which are quite similar to Anglican Chant. You can find an example here, during the Vespers of Corpus Christi, at Saint-Eugène, Paris (starting at 15:45): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qocmU2aiWZI&t=1074s
    Psalms are sung by alternating plainchant and Parisian falsebordone.
  • I would highly recommend Healey Willan's Introits and Graduals for the Mass:

    http://gregorianbooks.com/gregorian/pdf/www.musicasacra.com/books/introits_and_graduals_willan.pdf

    These are through-composed rather than Anglican Chant per se, but I don't think you'll find anything better.
  • It is interesting that Willan did these for the Lutherans and that they were published by the Lutheran publishing house, Concordia, which is located in St Louis.

    We used them every Sunday back in the seventies when I was serving the Lutherans. I always regretted that there were only introits and graduals - not the complete set of propers. Still, I was quite pleased to use them - and impressed that the Lutherans had them.
  • I thought Lutherans were a bit skeptical with regard to plainsong.
  • I would often use the Gregorian tones for psalmody when i was serving the Lutherans.
    Some high church Lutherans sing plainsong quite often and proudly, and aren't the least bit afraid of it. Other Lutherans sing it occasionally not realising what it is - they are actually quite paranoid about anything remotely Catholic. Tell them that Luther loved Latin, retained much of it in his liturgies, and loved the motets of des Pres and others and it doesn't compute - you just get a blank stare. Lutherans are not taught that Luther loved Latin and would have preferred that Lutheran liturgy be in Latin, purged of certain prayers which in his troubled mind were, shall we say, 'erroneous'. Only at the insistence of some of his even more radical colleagues did he provide them with his Deutsche Messe, which no one uses nowadays.

    I must say, though, that while there are quite a few high church Lutherans who are almost Catholics, most by far are not even really Lutheran at all, particularly not liturgically - Luther would not know them nor would he be pleased. Most are to one degree or another evangelicals with a Lutheran veneer.

    When I was serving the Lutherans I would always, when attending conventions at Valparaiso and other places, just happen to meet those Lutherans who adored the BCP, wore chasubles, dalmatics, and tunicles, who used incense, who called their pastors 'father', who believed in transubstantiation and the bloodless sacrifice of the mass, and held the Blessed Sacrament in wondrous awe, who reserved the sacrament for adoration, who went to confession, who revered and invoked the saints, and one could go on and on. As with Anglo-Catholics (and Anglicans in general) the Petrine supremacy was just not acceptable - a first among equals, yes, but no more than that. I have heard it said that certain Lutherans have approached Rome to the end of getting a Lutheran Ordinariate and have been told that it will not happen.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    Jehan - My knowledge of Lutherans is second hand, but from the Memoirs of Louis Bouyer, who served as a Lutheran pastor for three years before joining the Catholic church, I gather that there was a wide range of practice in France around 1940. It sounds as though the US now has a similar wide range, liturgically and theologically.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    I'd be curious to experience how AC works in French.

    I've tried setting English to falsobordoni, because Anglican Chant is, well, Anglican


    I once tried setting Latin to Anglican chant and the results were... not ideal. I'm sure it could be done by an expert, but the two did not naturally fit together.

    I think there is something to be said about the way languages direct the development of the music produced by the people who speak them. I am no expert, but - for example - I find it unlikely English speakers could have invented Konnakol or that Latins could have invented Hip Hop. Once created, it is possible to for a genre to jump languages, but I have a(n unprovable) hunch that vocal music genres are highly contextual in their origin.
    Thanked by 1a_f_hawkins
  • Unlike Adam, I have heard Latin set to Anglican chant very effectively and beautifully. The choirmaster of Houston's Annunciation (a very old and very conservative downtown parish) used to set some psalmody to Anglican chant at vespers. It was exquisite. This man, our Forum member Felipe Gaspar, had been choirmaster at Walsingham for several years about ten years ago. The key is an acute sense of rhythm and an unwavering instinct for just the right pointing.

    (Felipe has since taken a Coptic Canadian wife and now resides in Toronto.)

    I, myself, have tinkered with some Latin Anglican chant but have never performed any. Inspired by Jehan, I shall now have to experiment with French Anglican chant. I'm sure it would be quite beautiful.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    > The key is an acute sense of rhythm and an unwavering instinct for pointing.

    Quite.

    > Felipe Gaspard

    I am... unsurprised.
  • Jehan - My knowledge of Lutherans is second hand, but from the Memoirs of Louis Bouyer, who served as a Lutheran pastor for three years before joining the Catholic church, I gather that there was a wide range of practice in France around 1940. It sounds as though the US now has a similar wide range, liturgically and theologically.


    That is indeed my understanding. My in-laws are currently practicing lutherans and I served for a while as a student intern for a ELCA parish. I can't keep the various strains straight in my head, but my understanding is that USA lutherans range from high-church, true presence, rood screen, chasuble, communion rail, lap-up-every-word-of-luther types to peace, love & women bishops types. There are 4 or 5 major veins of Lutherans in the USA and there are some serious quibbles between them, to the point that the "high church" lutheran pastor (who wore a roman collar, btw) wouldn't even set foot in the ELCA church across town, even when the local bishop visited. They are that far apart.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • ViolaViola
    Posts: 377
    This sounds to me rather like the Church of England......
  • Well, Viola,
    It is often said over here that high church Lutherans ape the Anglicans.
    Still, they seem to have their own cultural ethos - and Anglo-Catholics have no use for Luther. But low church Anglicans? That's another matter. Too, both Oxford and Cambridge and the lawyer class were heavily infected with Lutherism and Calvinism in Henry VIII's time - is this not so?
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,409
    heavily infected with Lutherism and Calvinism in Henry VIII's time - is this not so?


    Yes, it is quite so.

    Anglicans are fond of thinking of themselves as a via media between Catholicism and Protestantism. And, today, that is more or less accurate. (In England and the Americas, that is. Global Anglicanism is all over the place.)

    However, the first articulation of the Middle Way idea (though it was not called that) was not between Protestantism and Catholicism, but rather between a sort of sane brand of Lutheran Protestantism and the insane radicalism of the Calvinist Puritans.

    As Wikipedia recounts:

    Anglicanism, which emerged out of the English Reformation, was originally seen as a via media between two forms of Protestantism—Lutheranism and Reformed Christianity.[1] Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury who played a chief role in shaping Anglicanism, sought a middle way between Lutheranism and Calvinism, though he was closer to Calvinism.[1] Historic Anglicanism is a part of the wider Reformed tradition, as "the founding documents of the Anglican church—the Book of Homilies, the Book of Common Prayer, and the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion—expresses a theology in keeping with the Reformed theology of the Swiss and South German Reformation."[3] The Most Rev. Peter Robinson, presiding bishop of the United Episcopal Church of North America, writes:[4]

    Cranmer's personal journey of faith left its mark on the Church of England in the form of a Liturgy that remains to this day more closely allied to Lutheran practice, but that liturgy is couple to a doctrinal stance that is broadly, but decidedly Reformed. ... The 42 Articles of 1552 and the 39 Articles of 1563, both commit the Church of England to the fundamentals of the Reformed Faith. Both sets of Articles affirm the centrality of Scripture, and take a monergist position on Justification. Both sets of Articles affirm that the Church of England accepts the doctrine of predestination and election as a 'comfort to the faithful' but warn against over much speculation concerning that doctrine. Indeed a casual reading of the Wurttemburg Confession of 1551, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Scots Confession of 1560, and the XXXIX Articles of Religion reveal them to be cut from the same bolt of cloth.[4]


    The Puritan sect influenced the translation of the KJV, both in the fact that some of the translators had Puritan leanings and also since the Puritan-translated Geneva Bible had come to be the most popular and beloved English translation. Because of its popularity, the translators were loathe to stray too far from its prosody. Another piece of evidence for the Puritan influence on the KJV is the explicit instruction from King James to limit the influence of the Puritans. (A good rule of thumb in studying history is that if there is a strongly worded prohibition on something, you can bet it was happening. A lot).

    Side note: I myself have compared a few passages (most recently, the Parable of the Talents) in the KJV and each of the primary English translations leading up to it. And, to my amateur eyes, the KJV looks like a moderately edited Geneva Bible. (As opposed to, say, a moderately edited Douay-Rheims.)


    It wasn't until the Tractarian movement that the idea of a middle way between Protestantism and Catholicism took hold. Of course, by that time "Protestantism" had come to mean: the thing Anglicans were, at that point, doing - a liturgy which took its form from the pre-existing Catholic structure, but with content that was thoroughly and consciously Calvinist in its theology. This is what became the one half of the modern via media.

    (If anyone cares: My opinion on all this is that compromising with the Puritans in order to keep them in the Church of England was a bad idea, because they ended up leaving anyway and the theological/liturgical damage they wrought did not leave with them. Lesson from history: don't negotiate with people who are willing to blow up the building to get their way, because they are going to blow up the building anyway.)

    And then, yay!, the Puritans and their ridiculous hats came to America. Which went very well, obviously.

    What were we talking about?
  • The poor, poor Puritans. They were so nastily treated and oppressed in England that they voyaged to America to breathe freely - where they proceeded to treat nastily and oppress anyone who disagreed with them. One of history's lessons is that too often today's oppressed will, given the chance, be tomorrow's oppressors.

    I'll not go into detail about Adam's account of the continental reformist and Lutheran influence in the C of E (after Henry's reign - he would have had no truck with them). Along side of these sorts, though, was a considerable element who never forgot the C of E's Catholic roots and hied as closely to them as they could. They and the Calvinist sympathisers were a constant thorn in each other's sides. Newman and the tractarians did not happen in a vacuum. They were the heirs of many Catholic leaning clerics and scholars through the reigns of both the Tudors and the Stuarts. Notable amongst these was Archbishop Laud and the Caroline divines (a 'divine' being a theologian - hence, St John the Divine). It was from the ground work laid by such as these that Newman and the tractarians sprang.

    It is also worthy of note that a number of continental princes and kings took note of Henry's attempt at a ceasaro-papist church in the Orthodox mold. Several of them, notably the French, went so far as to let it be known that unless they were granted certain concessions and the right to name their bishops and so on that they, too, could go the way of England. The thousand or more year tension between crown and miter was never far below the surface in royal vs episcopal and papal politics throughout Europe. If Henry's pope had not been politically submissive to the emperor Charles V, uncle to Henry's wife, Katherine of Aragon, Henry would have got his divorce and history would have unfolded quite differently than it did. Curious it is how that the State(s) which fifteen or so hundred years ago drew their legitimacy from the Church have come to cast it off totally, having no regard at all for its teaching or guidance, let alone its blessing - even openly persecuting it.

    Too, I have always thought it a cruel irony that the very first and last clauses of Magna Charta state explicitly the 'the Church of England shall be free'. This meant free of meddling and control by the Crown. Stangely, I've never heard of an Englishman who took note of the incongruity of this with developments since Henry's reign. Indeed, the C of E recently delivered up bishopesses largely at the insistent behest of PM Cameron.
    What were we talking about?
    Anglican chant.
  • A good rule of thumb in studying history is that if there is a strongly worded prohibition on something, you can bet it was happening. A lot.


    A good rule of thumb in studying your modern company handbook is that if there is a strongly worded prohibition on something, you can bet it happened at least the one time that the company got sued over it prior to prohibiting in their manual to prevent further lawsuits.

    At one workplace we had to put a CAUTION: WET FLOOR out when it was raining outside, even and especially when the actual floor was dry. The reason was, predictably, an old lawsuit.

    Since we are talking about Anglican chant, I should add that not dragging the pace, following the natural accents and rhythm of the text, and enunciating properly will help make it ring out even in Latin. Beware of foot-dragging and sloppiness lest you hear the dreaded footsteps of the Ordinariate Lawyers at your front door.
  • ...a strongly worded prohibition...you can bet...
    Indeed. As it has often been said in church circles, 'the law is the mirror of our sins'.
    Thanked by 1Adam Wood
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    "Newman and the Tractarians did not happen in a vacuum" and they set out their pedigree in the Library of Anglo Catholic Theology, the writings of 20 authors, many of them CofE bishops.
  • Newman and the tractarians did not happen in a vacuum. They were the heirs of many Catholic leaning clerics and scholars through the reigns of both the Tudors and the Stuarts. Notable amongst these was Archbishop Laud and the Caroline divines (a 'divine' being a theologian - hence, St John the Divine). It was from the ground work laid by such as these that Newman and the tractarians sprang.


    Yet, the first tractarians were not "Ritualists": they celebrated the rites of the CoE as they were found in any Anglican church in those days, in an Evangelical way. Until his conversion, Newman always celebrated the Communion service with a surplice, facing North when present at the altar (according to his biograph, Fr. Louis Bouyer).

    It is also worthy of note that a number of continental princes and kings took note of Henry's attempt at a ceasaro-papist church in the Orthodox mold. Several of them, notably the French, went so far as to let it be known that unless they were granted certain concessions and the right to name their bishops and so on that they, too, could go the way of England.


    You nailed it. Louis XIV was even to the edge of excommunication because of his Gallican tendencies. Bossuet summarized the Gallican doctrine in the "Four articles", which made clear the head of the Church in France was the King, and not the Pope. Henry VIII's move was an example for him and many other kings.
  • Jehan - My knowledge of Lutherans is second hand, but from the Memoirs of Louis Bouyer, who served as a Lutheran pastor for three years before joining the Catholic church, I gather that there was a wide range of practice in France around 1940. It sounds as though the US now has a similar wide range, liturgically and theologically.


    Thank you for this quote. You are absolutely correct about Lutherans in France, which were always very "High-Church" Protestants. I have a very dear friend who converted from Lutheranism and he told me how his former parish worshipped: I wish Catholic parishes were there to take notes!
    On the other hand, French Lutherans really were a minority, and will be even more a minority in the future.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • I wish Catholic parishes were there to take notes.
    Well, In France as well as in the Anglophone world there have been and are many Catholics who would favour taking lessons in vernacular liturgy and music from Anglo-Catholics. Few Catholic bishops and clerics, though, have shown anything but contempt for learning anything at all from Anglicans. In fact, an Anglican origin of most anything was and is the kiss of death for all but a relative few Catholics in the Anglophone world. It should be noted that one of the greatest stumbling blocks to the conversion of Anglo-Catholics has been and remains the abject and studied awfulness, the determined pedestrian orientation of Catholic liturgy and music as practiced in by far most places.

    I suspect that this is true in France as well. Several years ago I was engaged to play a Christmas eve mass for Houston's French community which was celebrated at UST's St Basil's Chapel. I was really excited about this and expected a really fine liturgy and music - it was French, after all. Well, it was nothing of the sort. The chatty celebrant sang nary a word. The homily was as shallow as a puddle on the side walk. The music was some awful stuff badly played by a combo composed of very ungifted grade school children. And, the d'Aquin, Balbastre, and Lebegue noels that I played thinking how much they would be appreciated fell on deaf ears - not a soul was stirred. These went right over their heads while they continued to talk through it all. I had contemplated some Langlais as well, but it's just as well that I didn't bother playing it.
  • And, Jehan, about Bossuet. I was quite a student of his in high school and university. His thought coincided for the most part with mine (at that time). I am and always have been a royalist, and at that time believed in the divine right of kings (I still do in a very vague way) and will never forgive the French for their shameless and savage act of regicide. Too bad that Louis XVI was a man not up to the challenges of his time - but he was a good soul (with an unfortunate wife) who wished nothing but good for his people. When the Paris mob stormed the Tuilleries the Swiss Guard waited in vain for orders to defend the place. Louis steadfastly refused to allow them to fire on his people. The result was that the mob slaughtered the Swiss Guard down to the last man as they stood there defenseless.
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • As is well known, Louis XVI even attempted to get his nobles and the prelates to pay taxes. They, of course, refused with haughty stubbornness. I have often thought this a grievous shame, for if they had agreed to pay their share to help the nation the French economy would have recovered and there would likely have been no revolution and reign of terror. How short sighted, irresponsible, and lacking in vision people can be in defense of their privileges - and how disastrous the eventual outcome for all concerned. (This is as true today as it was in 1789.)
    Thanked by 1Jehan_Boutte
  • @M. Jackson Osborn

    You know, we don't find many Anglicans in France; but those present indeed have a wonderful Liturgy (even though it's more Evangelical than Anglo-Catholic).
    From what I have seen, indeed, many Anglicans won't become Catholics simply because of the Liturgy. There is certainly some kind of pride and attachement to the Liturgy "how I want it to be", since there is a great measure of freedom in the Anglican Communion on liturgical matters. But on the other hand, if they are capable of celebrating the Liturgy so well, why could we not?

    As to what you say about French and the Liturgy... too true unfortunately. France is a "Low Church" country today, most French Catholics have never heard plainsong at Mass, and it is nearly impossible to find decent French plainsong. Not to mention the Propers of the Mass, of which most Catholics have never heard of.
  • It is very worth reading Louis XVI’s final letter from prison… It is the stuff of which saints are made.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Jehan,

    Is your description of modern France, perhaps, why many outsiders say that the only part of the Church in France which is growing is the traditionalist-royalist part?
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,366
    I suppose Louis XVI's will is meant; there are other "last letters" of uncertain provenance. Wiki source has only one letter, on "armed force, as the best means of checking seditious parties".
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 173
    Chris,

    Is your description of modern France, perhaps, why many outsiders say that the only part of the Church in France which is growing is the traditionalist-royalist part?

    True, the Trad movement in France is slowly growing. But not all trads are royalists. Most of them just want the Liturgy as they know and love it.
    I myself am not a royalist. I am not opposed to monarchy as such, far from it, but we'll most likely remain in a republic; and moreover, the nature of our political regime is not the real problem.
    In fact, this is one of the two issues I have with French trads (though some would call me a trad too): many of them seem to believe traditional liturgy and Monarchism go hand in hand. Which is false and dangerous for outsiders.
    The other issue is many won't want to hear about properly incorporated vernacular in the Liturgy. Hence, there are very little resources with regard to the Propers of the Mass in French.

    Which returns me to Anglican chant and Anglicanism. I think a big difference between French-Speaking Catholicism and English-Speaking Catholicism is... Anglicanism. What I mean is when English or American Catholics contemplate what a traditional vernacular Liturgy could be, they only have to look at what their Anglo-Catholic neighbors do. Of course, they would not want to copy-paste the "Smells & Bells" BCP Service, but they would see this as a model for their own Roman Rite Mass & Office.
    On the other hand, French-Speaking Catholics don't have a "Franco-Catholic" tradition they can look at. French Protestantism has always been a Low-Church Protestantism, with special gems (the Genevan Psalter is wonderful to listen to), but nothing remotely resembling our own Tradition. Which, by the way, is one of the reasons why Protestantism never took root in France, since most people wanted the Mass as they knew it.
  • Here’s a translation of the letter.
    https://www.andrewcusack.com/2006/the-last-will-and-testament-of-louis-xvi/

    MA’s letter is good too, albeit less overtly Christian in tone.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    Jehan_Boutte NO! you are evidently unaware of the deep historic religious, cultural, and political hostility of Catholics in Ireland, England amd the US towards the English Establishment in general and the Anglican Church in particular. (Which has caused the death of over 2000 people in the UK over the last 50 years.) Things are changing slowly, but there are 500 years of history to overcome.
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 173
    NO! you are evidently unaware of the deep historic religious, cultural, and political hostility of Catholics in Ireland, England amd the US towards the English Establishment in general and the Anglican Church in particular. (Which has caused the death of over 2000 people in the UK over the last 50 years.) Things are changing slowly, but there are 500 years of history to overcome.

    As a matter of fact, I am aware of that. Of course Irish and American Catholics were quite hostile to anything Anglican (due to centuries of anti-Catholic persecution), even if the "anything" was liturgically more Catholic than them. What I mean is when the vernacular became a serious issue in the 20th Century, Catholics could look at Anglo-Catholics and be like: "We don't like them, but the way they are worshiping might be an example for us".
  • We don't like them,...
    has certainly happened, and often.
    ...but the way they are worshiping might be an example for us.
    This has never happened, except for a woeful few.
  • toddevoss
    Posts: 152
    What I mean is when English or American Catholics contemplate what a traditional vernacular Liturgy could be, they only have to look at what their Anglo-Catholic neighbors do.
    .

    I have often wondered aloud why this didn't happen as part of V2 when Americans and the English were trying to figure out the music for a vernacular (english) liturgy (Lutherans in America also provided models). It obviously didn't. I suppose for two reasons: the popular "folk" music zeitgeist was entering full bloom at the same time and also a sort of unmerited Roman Catholic pride (and ignorance) vis-a-vis protestant liturgical practices (as well as the "hostility" factor noted by others perhaps). I speak as an ex-Lutheran who still can "whistle" the common service.
  • Because a good number of Roman Catholics (perhaps even a majority) have a nepotistic tendency to discount anything produced outside the religion as inferior (even if it is actually far more akin to the principles and ethos of Catholicism than most of what is home-grown)
  • I have a copy of The English Missal, which is essentially a word for word translation of of the Tridentine rite into Old Church English, otherwise known as Prayer Book English. It was widely used by Anglo-Catholics both in Britain and the US (and, I would presume, other parts of the commonwealth). I remember thinking at the time of the 2nd Vatican council, when it was clear that the vernacular was to be permitted (it is important to recall that word 'permitted', for the council did not enjoin sole use of the vernacular but only permitted it at the discretion of the local ordinary whilst commanding that Latin be retained and that the people should know it), assuming that they might adopt The English Missal, or take a cue from it, not necessarily adopting Old Church English, but adopting a very fine contemporary speech. As we all know, nothing of the sort happened. Not only did they not follow the 500 year Anglican experience with vernacular liturgy and music, they contemptuously rejected it and adopted the most abjectly awful and uninspiring language ever to be used for worship in any religion in the world: that deliberately ungracious language which we can all (painfully) remember as the so called 'dynamic equivalence'. Well, there was nothing at all 'dynamic' about it, but 'equivalence' is the key word in this confusing locution. It was an attempt to make an artless parody 'equivalent' to what would be a translation which was not by any measure equivalent to any liturgical or ritual paradigm. With lamentable and ridiculously misplaced spiritual pride, and an hauteur which would have made a French aristocrat proud, the Catholic Church, on the whole, not only did abstain from consideration of any Anglican exemplars, but all but cursed them - such beauty was not to be enjoyed by Catholic people,: something more folksy and artless was good enough for them.

    The chaplain of St Basil's chapel at UST once lamented to me that it had been '...forty years and not one memorable phrase' - and it took them near fifty years (until a mere eight years ago) finally to do anything about it. And, what they did, though it is a tremendous improvement over what had been foisted off upon us, still falls short of what is really worthy. Both current forms of the Roman rite are unspeakably beautiful when celebrated (sung) in all their inviolable integrity. But, the vast majority of modern Catholics seem to enjoy the violation of that inviolable integrity and prefer their parodies to the genuine thing.
  • If it makes you feel any better, we did the Hymnal 1940 version of the Te Deum the other day. The plainchant was too much for my schola to learn in a pinch and singing the Anglican version was nearly sight readable. It was great, and the language was lovely.

    In fact, I look to the Anglican tradition for many things. Say what you want about their women bishops and other weirdness... but they know how to conduct a beautiful liturgy and their choirs literally bear the standard for the whole world.
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 173
    This has never happened, except for a woeful few.

    Of course it never has happened. But it should have, at least for the English-Speaking world. Of course, I understand Traditional English might not be everyone's taste, but a dignified and hieratic form of modern English might have been a solution (the translation of the Divine Liturgy in the UGCC is of that kind in my opinion).
    Unfortunately, as you said, even though it ought to have happened, it didn't happen. Which really is a shame, since there was a tremendous opportunity, on both liturgical and ecumenical terms, to incorporate the vernacular in such a way that the Roman tradition would have been respected.
    But of course, this is for English-Speaking Catholics to decide, and I am no one to tell them what they should or should not do.

    What I also mean is Anglo-Catholicism could serve as a model for English-Speaking Catholics, while there is no equivalent of Anglo-Catholicism in French-Speaking lands. This, coupled with political agendas (on both sides) and "pastoral imperatives" created the situation we currently live in, where on one side, you have a "frozen" tradition which won't want to hear anything about the vernacular, and on the other, an all-vernacular Liturgy which does not care about Tradition and the like of it.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    It's all very well to say what 'should have been done', but the battle in 1965 was so confused that the President of CMAA was supporting Ray Repp, and the Vatican musical establishment was busy blocking Graduale Simplex against Bugnini who was expending a sizeable effort to push it through.
    Thanked by 1Schönbergian
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 173
    On a side note, someone shared this in an Ordinariate forum: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hg-UfA_oQL8&t=2049s

    It is a Mattins Service offered in Uganda.
    Thanked by 1M. Jackson Osborn
  • I am beginning to introduce Anglican stylings by occasionally drawing from the Anglican Use Gradual. So far, the choir and congregation have been receptive to the 'new' aesthetics.
  • Quaeritur:

    Should one introduce Anglican chant into the Roman Rite?

    I grew up on Anglican chant, and learned (therefore) how to read pointing, a skill which served me very well when it came time to introduce Vespers in a Catholic parish, many years later. My question isn't whether Anglican chant can be sung beautifully -- thereby meeting a first criterion for inclusion: ugly should be excluded, and Anglican chant isn't (by nature, at least) ugly. Rather, I guess, the question implies two other things.

    1) Does Anglican chant predate Henry's break with God's Church? (or, if not, is falsobordone a close enough cousin to argue that this is just a home-coming)

    2) Is the Ordinariate ritual (I'm not up on the terms) the proper, fitting, place for this music to flourish and the Roman Missal not the place for it to flourish, and if so, on what ground?
  • Jehan_Boutte
    Posts: 173
    Respondeo dicendum quod:

    1) As far as I know, Anglican chant is a modern and legitimate development of the Latin psalmody.

    2) The Ordinariate Use is, as you say, "the proper, fitting, place for this music to flourish", and the Roman Missal isn't, since the Roman Missal does not have any Anglican background. It would feel like cultural appropriation to use Anglican chant in the Roman Mass (that's why even though I love the Byzantine rite and attend it whenever I can, I would not like to see a Roman Mass with pseudo-Byzantine chant, as it is unfortunately quite customary in France).
  • francisfrancis
    Posts: 9,546
    The rites should remain unique and not incorporate derivatives
    Thanked by 1sdtalley3
  • davido
    Posts: 506
    “Anglican” chant are harmonized tones for liturgical cantilation of prose texts (principally the psalms).
    This sort of music occurs in nearly every liturgical tradition: medieval organum, sixteenth century Italian falsobordone, French eighteenth century fauxbordone, Eastern and Russian orthodox harmonized chant, David Clayton’s modern psalm tones, etc.
    There is no reason why any of these musical styles can’t be selected by a Catholic choirmaster to beautify his church’s liturgies.
  • And, if anyone needs "inspiration" to set their own psalm settings, there's a fabulous collection on IMSLP called "cathedral chants". The original as well as a newly-engraved edition are both available. It is literally just a book full of hundreds of anglican chant tones. https://imslp.org/wiki/Cathedral_Chants_(Various)

    All the tones are in the public domain so you can use them in your arrangements freely.

    (the bottom link is the newly engraved edition)
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 2,699
    francis - the Ordinariate Missal rubrics start with GIRM, before presenting the differences as a variant.The Use is treated as another form alongside OF and EF; any Ordinariate priest can use any of the three forms, and any non-Ordinariate priest can use the Ordinariate form on justified request from members of the Ordinariate. However obviously you must not switch back and forth between forms/Missals during one Mass.
  • It seems the Introit, Offertory and Communion may be replaced with a hymn.