Did Vatican II Open The Floodgates?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    That doesn't mean that the music that volunteers offer is not valuable and should be appreciated, even if not necessarily "good".


    I've often pondered this, and while I have a personal inclination, I'm not sure I can dogmatically proclaim an answer to this.

    That said, I do often wonder if it is not actually better/preferable to have a silent low mass than to simply have people "doing their best" but falling way short of the mark. Just being willing is not necessarily enough when it comes to objective aesthetics. I'm doubtful it does much more than distract people from what could otherwise be a prayerful atmosphere. Divine Liturgy deserves the "best" we can offer, BUT there are also objective measures and standards which the Church has codified through the centuries. Falling way short of those (or outright ignoring them) doesn't really do much good. It might make you feel good, but we all know that's not a good barometer for behavior either.
    Thanked by 2MarkB CHGiffen
  • At least in our parish, the congregation has a clear preference for music. We do have a silent low mass but it is not as well attended. The music offered by our group is the "best" we can do. I don't feel good about the level of performance but I do feel good by the positive impact we have on the Congregation. The opinion that music has to be outstanding in order to be of value is as shortsighted as saying we should only have top orators as lectors, inspiring and powerful homilies every week by our clergy and museum quality aesthetics in our church buildings. Ours is a Church of the people. I personally don't think that Christ would have criticized what we and other volunteers do to promote His church.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    The opinion that music has to be outstanding in order to be of value is as shortsighted as saying we should only have top orators as lectors, inspiring and powerful homilies every week by our clergy and museum quality aesthetics in our church buildings.


    Many here would love this to be the case, lol.

    I agree with you that it's obviously a fools-errand to say that only 'perfection' should be admitted to the liturgy. But if the best a parish can do is a banjo and out-of-tune guitar while someone croaks a modern eucharistic hymn with questionable theological implications, then it's much better to be silent. That's all I'm saying. (And I'm not accusing your group of this, to be clear.)
  • I agree that really bad music such as what you describe takes away from the liturgy. If there is truly questionable music in the hymnals that we are told to use, then it is up to the Church to better edit the selections. I believe that ultimately it is the pastor's responsibility to make sure everything done in connection with the Mass is appropriate.
  • Welcome Piccolopat,

    Unpopular opinions around here are.... common enough, so the presumed fact that your opinion will be unpopular is no reason not to express it cogently, thoughtfully and patiently --- all of which marks you appear to have met.

    May I suggest that you're using the wrong lens, however, in evaluating music? Since the object of the worship of the Mass is God, it isn't the standards of "participation" or "inclusion" or anything similar which must organize the data and resolve the question. It is true that the widow's mite was more pleasing to God than the buckets and buckets of ducats which others put in the Temple offering, but that had nothing to do with the size of the offering itself: the disposition of the heart was more important. She, with her two coins offered everything she had (and therefore her absolute best, relying on God for everything). They offered what they could afford (by implication, comfortably) and what made them appear pious in the eyes of men.

    I will try to respond to more of what you wrote, but that will have to wait until later.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    If there is truly questionable music in the hymnals that we are told to use, then it is up to the Church to better edit the selections. I believe that ultimately it is the pastor's responsibility to make sure everything done in connection with the Mass is appropriate.


    I agree on both counts. That said, when you are acting as music minister for the Church, you become "the Church" as far as being editor is concerned. Many (most?) common hymnals have commercial interests that far outweigh theological concerns. Many of these companies also do not serve catholics exclusively. This is how they get filled with bad stuff. Also, some of their editors have their own agendas and do not see eye-to-eye with tradition, and are therefore more than happy to put things in their hymnals to which others would object. Many priests do not know enough about liturgy (this is sad, but oh so very, very true) and while the buck does indeed stop with them, they are ill-prepared to make subtle distinctions as far as hymnals are concerned. They also have many other parties to whom they answer, and thus have political concerns as well. Music ministers have one job, so to speak, and thus it is easier (at least in a certain sense) for us to be the aforementioned editors. You definitely should not be programming hymns simply because they are in the hymnal and the pastor hasn't said "no" to them. Much more discernment is required.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    May I suggest that you're using the wrong lens, however, in evaluating music? Since the object of the worship of the Mass is God, it isn't the standards of "participation" or "inclusion" or anything similar which must organize the data and resolve the question. It is true that the widow's mite was more pleasing to God than the buckets and buckets of ducats which others put in the Temple offering, but that had nothing to do with the size of the offering itself: the disposition of the heart was more important. She, with her two coins offered everything she had (and therefore her absolute best, relying on God for everything). They offered what they could afford (by implication, comfortably) and what made them appear pious in the eyes of men.


    Chris, I believe this was indeed piccolopat's point. They make the best music they can and do so with a happy heart. It was indeed I who took issue with the heart not necessarily being the only appropriate standard to consider. Many people sing many hymns to God quite joyfully at the average parish every weekend... they are also singing very bad music with even worse texts. But, in a certain sense they are offering their widow's mites in their own way, particularly at smaller parishes.

    There's something to be said for degrees of solemnity. But as I said, I believe that if the basic standards for the lowest degree of solemnity cannot be met, then it is better to not have music, or only have one or two simple pieces that are beyond reproach rather than having a bunch of music done either poorly or done in a way that is antithetical to traditional church praxis. This is where I take umbrage with guitars, for instance. But I don't want to open up that whole can of worms. Different thread, different day.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen RedPop4
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    one or two simple pieces that are beyond reproach
    There are assemblies where no one present is capable of singing any of the music in the Missal, but it is uncommon. In my previous home parish, after I pointed out that the Alleluia† must either be sung or omitted it has AFAIK always been sung by the reader (unless the choir is present) and absolutely any reader is capable of it.
    † That is the word (antiphon) Alleluia, not neccessarily the verse, they always use the triplet purloined from Lauds of Easter Day.
  • Serviam,

    The passage about the widow's mite illustrates the necessary focus on God, not the type of music. That is, rather, represented by the Wedding Feast, to which one guest showed up improperly attired. That which is improper to the Mass is improper, and no amount of wishing it to be otherwise can change the fundamental incompatibility of most of the modern repertoire with the proper worship of God.
    Thanked by 2dad29 ServiamScores
  • It's the same old saw - music that people can sing. Meaning, of course, guitar and combo stuff, and definitely not chant, normal hymns, and choirs to inspire with the Church's great choral treasures.
    What a narrow, utterly myopic and irresponsible view, one which perpetuates the falsehood (as in 'lie') that people can't sing chant, normal hymns, and be inspired by their choirs (if they even have anything resembling a real choir) We have reached the bottom of the pit when the people themselves buy this line.
    The people can sing whatever they are patiently taught by someone who really knows what he or she is doing and has an undeterred vision of doing what the council really did say..

    There are those who, when offered a hot dog or a Chateaubriand will choose the hot dog every time. And if one of them here and there looks to be picking the Chateaubriand, there will be a priest or musician nearby telling him that he can't have it. When, oh when, will we be rid of this institutionalised ignorance and those who perpetuate it.

    At any rate -welcome to the forum.
  • Charles, somewhere up above here, notes that Vatican II couldn't have happened at a worse time. He is so right. Right in the middle of the 'God is dead' era, right when our civilisation was coming loose at the seams, right when seminaries were infected with heresy and a hatred for any thing of heritage, etc, etc. (And they are to this day.)

    I have often reflected on this and have been of the opinion that if the council had happened fifty or seventy=five years earlier the outcome would have been far different. We might have had a vernacular mass with a masterpiece of a translation. Fitting music for it would have been commissioned. There would have been no liturgical chaos resulting. Profane music would not have been thought in the council's halls or anywhere else.

    We live in an era in which Western civilisation is the only culture on this entire world which is committing cultural suicide to please every one else. No other cultures are doing this or would even conceive of it. The same applies to the Christian and Catholic faith and culture, and most of our priests, hierarchs, and people are enjoying the dance around the golden calf.
  • The passage about the widow's mite illustrates the necessary focus on God, not the type of music. That is, rather, represented by the Wedding Feast, to which one guest showed up improperly attired. That which is improper to the Mass is improper, and no amount of wishing it to be otherwise can change the fundamental incompatibility of most of the modern repertoire with the proper worship of God.


    Chris, the issue is who determines what is appropriate attire or music? For some, a wedding requires gowns and tuxes while others are fine with jeans and tees. For some, only Latin will do while others will only attend if the Mass is in a language they understand. As for music, some people only want to hear chant, others classical organ & choir, while others prefer more modern / lighter music. I would argue that unless there is something inherently disrespectful or utterly incompatible with Church doctrine, it should not be dismissed just because it is different than what others deem appropriate.

    Peace!
  • Piccolopat, welcome to the forum. I do have one question regarding your stance on active participation. If the congregation is actively participating while the lector proclaims the readings, why wouldn't they be actively participating while listening to the schola sing the entrance chant (including if the chant is in english and they can understand the words)?
  • Nathan (other previous posters) - thanks for the welcome. I may be a skilled musician but I am only a volunteer music minister and have been for more than 25 years. I've been leading this group now for several years by default. Our parish has never had any kind of formal training and so I have relied on what was done before I became the director of this group as well as reading what I could. Within the text of the Mass, parts are assigned - priest, lector, congregation. I was always told that music belonged to the congregation and that the role of music ministry was to facilitate their participation. I think there is a distinct difference between actively participating (singing) and passive listening. When I attend a symphony, I don't consider myself an active participant just because I am listening, even in cases where I know the music well enough that I am silently working the keys of my flute in my head. All this said, I don't know if I am correct but I will say that in the past before I took responsibility for the group, we were specifically told not to sing songs that were not in our hymnals, no matter how appropriate otherwise, because the congregation could not join in.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Chris, the issue is who determines what is appropriate attire or music?

    The Church has, time and time again, and been ignored just as frequently.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    piccolopat - you need first to look at the official instructions! These changed (but not much) in 2011 when the new translation came in. You find them in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). You can probably find it online, but Altar Missals should have it.
    [Online here for the USA]
    I was always told that music belonged to the congregation
    You were not told the truth. For example the Entrance chant: GIRM §47. describes the purpose, then GIRM §48. begins
    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. ...
  • Piccolopat,

    Please make sure not to mix essentials with non-essentials.

    The chant which the Church gives to us is, by its nature, suited to the august worship of God, even when sung badly -- under the same rubric that Mozart is still Mozart and Bach is still Bach, even when played worse than badly. Now, I grant that it is better to do a little well than everything poorly, but that's not an excuse (for lack of a better word) to aim at mediocrity.

    I agree with Jackson (which isn't entirely surprising) that the operating assumption that ordinary unwashed folk can't sing chant is absolutely false, so anything building on that assumption is going to run into problems. So-called folk music isn't (usually) anything but a pretender to the throne.

    It really wasn't that long ago that most people had studied enough Latin to make their way through simple reading assignments in this language.

  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    CGZ my grandmother had an elementary education in rural Ireland in the 1880's. In the course of that she was taught 'Latin roots', enough that while she could not translate what the prayers said, she could say 'this is about the Holy Ghost and wisdom'.
  • This is not an accurate statement, not at all! When listening to music, be it a choral anthem in church, Brahms at the symphony, Bach at a recital, or a play at the Globe, what ever the circumstances, the listeners-hearers are most definitely participants and comprehenders. They are part and parcel of the performance and are aedified, intellectual stimulated, and spiritually moved by it. They are in no way passive. They are an integral part of the music being performed in their presence. If no one hears it, listens to it and participates in it really doesn't exist.

    One can be equally (not a whit less) aedified and inspired by being part of a choral anthem as by singing a hymn. Would anyone be so daft as to say that he isn't participating in a homily. The only people who are not active participants in any musical performance, in or out of church, are dead. One isn't erased but amplified by hearing God given music by those extraordinarily gifted by God himself. Who is so base that he or she would not value such music and be enriched by it?

    This is a very wrong attitude, and one which isn't a very sensitive or informed one.
  • a_f_hawkins 2:17PM Thanks Posts: 2,285
    piccolopat - you need first to look at the official instructions! These changed (but not much) in 2011 when the new translation came in. You find them in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM). You can probably find it online, but Altar Missals should have it.


    a_f_hawkins - I found the GIRM on the website of USCCB.org. You referenced section 48 and this reads:

    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.

    I find it interesting that 3 of the 4 means of singing the chant involve the people, with the choir only listed as the last option. I'm not sure if that means one is preferred over the other but in this document also I found these two sections:

    103. Among the faithful, the schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical function, its place being to take care that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different genres of chant, are properly carried out and to foster the active participation of the faithful by means of the singing.[86] What is said about the schola cantorum also applies, with due regard for the relevant norms, to other musicians, and especially the organist.

    104. It is fitting that there be a cantor or a choir director to direct and support the people’s singing. Indeed, when there is no choir, it is up to the cantor to direct the different chants, with the people taking the part proper to them.[87]


    I added the bolding in 103. This and the entirety of 104 as well as in 48 seems to indicate the importance of the congregation singing rather than just listening.

    Thanks for the info on the GIRM. I will have to read through it in its entirety when I have the time but it will be an invaluable resource.
  • M. Jackson Osborn, I don't think my attitude is wrong, insensitive or misinformed. I simply have a different opinion than you. When someone attends a performance, they can choose to actively listen or fall asleep and ignore what is going on. Active participation might include joining in via singing or clapping in time with the music when invited to do so by the artist. Actively listening, IMHO, is not the same as active participation. Consider your school years. If I simply sat in class and listened carefully, I would not be credited with class participation. For that I would have to actively ask and answer questions and join in activities along with the class. I see participation in Mass the same way. You just see it differently.
  • Thanked by 2Elmar Schönbergian
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    If one accepts Vatican II's call for "full, conscious, and active participation" in such a way, this would mean that "[speaking] or clapping in time" with the Canon, homily, and readings would also be required in order to fulfill this mandate. There are long swaths of the Mass in which we "merely listen" and do not "actively" participate, yet only music is placed under this scrutiny.

    We should also take note that, despite this artistic vandalism undertaken by liturgical progressives over the last sixty years, Catholic congregations remain some of the least enthusiastic singers in Christendom. If the goal of these musicians has been to encourage FCAP, no conclusion can be reached other than that they failed miserably.
  • bhcordovabhcordova
    Posts: 1,164
    103. Among the faithful, the schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical function, its place being to take care that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different genres of chant, are properly carried out and to foster the active participation of the faithful by means of the singing.[86] What is said about the schola cantorum also applies, with due regard for the relevant norms, to other musicians, and especially the organist.


    piccolopat, the question is 'What parts of the Mass are proper to the choir and which are proper to the people?' The propers (i.e. those parts that vary (the entrance antiphon, the offertory antiphon, the communion antiphon) are proper to the choir. The ordinaries (the Gloria, the Responsorial Psalm (or the Gradual - not the same thing), the Alleluia (or the Gospel Acclimation), the Sanctus, the Angnus Dei) are proper to the people. Just as the readings are proper to the lector, the Gospel proper to the deacon, and the rest proper to the priest.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw Elmar RedPop4
  • Elmar
    Posts: 506
    I'm still waiting for a 'NO church' to dare singing the Creed of a choral mass. I am certainly not the only one who would pray it more intensely by listening to the choir than by hastily saying it in the vernacular; I often find myself being completely distracted while still saying the words like an automat...

    We used to have a man in the pews who gave the good example by actively participating in some specific Benedictus soprano solo.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw RedPop4
  • Schönbergian 3:37PM Thanks
    Posts: 728
    If one accepts Vatican II's call for "full, conscious, and active participation" in such a way, this would mean that "[speaking] or clapping in time" with the Canon, homily, and readings would also be required in order to fulfill this mandate. There are long swaths of the Mass in which we "merely listen" and do not "actively" participate, yet only music is placed under this scrutiny.


    Each part of the Mass is designated for priest, lector, the people, etc. Active participation for the speaking parts means the congregants should speak the prayers being said by the whole at that time. Sitting and listening to others say the Our Father is not the same as that person actively engaging and praying it themselves. Most music should include the congregation but some, notably parts sung by the priest, do not.
  • Piccolo,

    Would you accept as valid the distinction between active listening and passive hearing? It seems to me that even hearing has ( or at least can have) an active element. If one is actively listening, one can make an appropriate response at an appropriate time.

    In addition to this distinction, there is the fundamental difference between “active” participation and what the Latin actually says. Pope Pius Xii insisted that we shouldn’t be expected to participate in a completely uniform way, in a famous encyclical whose name I can’t presently recall. He (and, later, the Council) insisted on a proper understanding of participation, which was then understood to mean something else entirely in the wake of the Council.
    Thanked by 2Elmar RedPop4
  • bhcordova 3:51PM Thanks
    Posts: 895
    piccolopat, the question is 'What parts of the Mass are proper to the choir and which are proper to the people?' The propers (i.e. those parts that vary (the entrance antiphon, the offertory antiphon, the communion antiphon) are proper to the choir. The ordinaries (the Gloria, the Responsorial Psalm (or the Gradual - not the same thing), the Alleluia (or the Gospel Acclimation), the Sanctus, the Angnus Dei) are proper to the people. Just as the readings are proper to the lector, the Gospel proper to the deacon, and the rest proper to the priest.


    I went back to the GIRM and found nothing that indicates certain sung parts of the mass are proper to the choir and only to the choir. In fact, section 48 addresses the entrance and says "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."

    Section 74 addresses the offertory and says "74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory Chant (cf. no. 37 b), which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance Chant (cf. no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the Offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts."

    Sections 86 and 87 address the Communion Chant and even that indicates it is sung by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.

    Based on this, I see nothing that supports the position that these arts of the mass are "proper to the choir". Perhaps I am missing something and if so I would be grateful if you can point out the section within GIRM.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    I entirely agree on the importance of the congregation singing, but not neccessarily everything. The Missal now emphasises the congregation singing the Ordinary by including simple congregational chants in both English and Latin. But "in keeping with the different genres of chant" if you have singers who can do justice to Mozart's Ave Verum Corpus then letting the congregation reflect during that may be as spiritually beneficial as a period of reflective silence. And periods of reflective silence are required by GIRM, though in many places that instruction is ignored along with those on music.
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky 4:08PM Thanks

    Would you accept as valid the distinction between active listening and passive hearing? It seems to me that even hearing has ( or at least can have) an active element. If one is actively listening, one can make an appropriate response at an appropriate time.


    Yes, I agree that there is a difference between active listening and passive hearing. The same goes for actively saying the prayers rather than simply having the words come out when you are on autopilot. I occasionally catch myself doing the latter while my mind is actively focused on something else. It's something I try to avoid but human nature being what it is...
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
    47. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Saviour instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the Sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved Spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity [36], a paschal banquet in which Christ is eaten, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us [37].

    This is interesting, so let us look at the active participation of those involved in the last day of Our Lords life.
    Christ said only a handful of words from the cross, so could not have been "actively participating"
    Our Blessed Lady said nothing...
    The Apostles apart from St. John, were absent...
    The Holy Women were weeping...
    The Centurion (St. Longinius) was another also mainly mute spectator.
    One thief cursed while St Dimas, also said only a sentence.
    Of course there was clapping and jeering and singing, quite a din was made until they were silenced by the earthquake, and the Sun disappearing.

    Do we really want to cling to an idea of active participation that only acknowledges one group of people, do we really wish to emulate them?

    Do we really want to exclude participation in the Sacrifice of the Mass, for those that follow the example of Our Blessed Mother? or the Holy Women?

    Mass attendance has been falling, is this because we exclude so many from the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are uncomfortable with a one size fits all approach to active participation?

    N.B. I am quite aware of Sacrosanctum Concilium 48 but the mention of "strangers or silent spectators" does not really make a clear statement when read in the light of the rest of that paragraph.
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • I just want to give a general thank you to everyone posting on this subject today. I appreciate the various points of view and the ability to share mine with others.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    If I can jump in on the Propers: the first two options for the Propers are Graduale Romanum, GR, and Graduale Simplex, GS. These are in Latin the Church's official music books, the chants of GR are for specialists, beyond the capacity of an unrehearsed schola, while the chants of GS are explicitly for cantor and congregation. It is a matter of the resources made available for any particular celebration, in accordance with the idea of progressive solemnity.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    Mass attendance has been falling, is this because we exclude so many from the Sacrifice of the Mass because they are uncomfortable with a one size fits all approach to active participation?
    Yes. It has been a failing of the Western approach for many centuries, which VII failed to overcome. GIRM makes it worse by advocating common rules of posture. Though the EF also has
    2 Circumstantes autem in Missis privatis semper genua flectunt, etiam Tempore Paschali, præterquam dum legitur Evangelium.
    A rubric as men we always completely ignored on Sundays and Holydays. One of our priests would refer to the 'pillars of the church' ie those who stood leaning against the walls (if they could find room), except at the Consecration. Necessitated by the crowding in the church.
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    In addition to this distinction, there is the fundamental difference between “active” participation and what the Latin actually says. Pope Pius Xii insisted that we shouldn’t be expected to participate in a completely uniform way, in a famous encyclical whose name I can’t presently recall. He (and, later, the Council) insisted on a proper understanding of participation, which was then understood to mean something else entirely in the wake of the Council.
    The fact that this is never emphasized is clear evidence, to me, of those shoving "FCAP" down the collective throats of Catholicism only being motivated by politics, rather than a desire to earnestly follow the Vatican's commands.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen tomjaw RedPop4
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    The fact that this is never emphasized is clear evidence, to me, of those shoving "FCAP" down the collective throats of Catholicism only being motivated by politics, rather than a desire to earnestly follow the Vatican's commands.


    Blind obedience to "Vatican Commands" is NOT what the church teaches or upholds... beware for your soul.

    just one article on this thinking...

    http://www.catholicapologetics.info/modernproblems/vatican2/wojtyla.htm

    So, what to do? Cling to your traditional catechisms and morality manuals. Practice the Catholic Faith as it has always been practiced. Offer sacrifices, especially the Holy Mass, and do penance. Pray the Rosary. Pray Novenas. And never forsake that which has come down to us from the Apostles, the holy Catholic Faith. These are the weapons to resist the innovators, the modernists, and the masons. Our Lady at Fatima promised her Immaculate Heart would triumph. And so it will.
    saw.jpg
    507 x 376 - 48K
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    CG-Z......Dot time!!

    The "low Mass," although invented for monasteries with multiple Masses concurrently celebrated, migrated into parishes over time during the post-WWII era, right up until the Great Switch was slammed home in 1969; that Switch more-or-less perpetuated the hymn-thing of the low Mass AND added--at one Mass--a vernacular Ordinary of dubious quality!

    At least in this SMSA, many parishes were running 1 Mass/hour from 6A through Noon, and in some parishes, there were Masses said 'in the basement/school cafeteria/gymnasium' (wherever) due to space restrictions in the church itself.

    So both time-available and 'venue' were problems for Sung Masses--which had zero possibility of being actual Solemn High Masses.

    One more thing: there was only one parish choir, and they weren't persuaded to sing for 2 or 3 Masses, much less 6 of them. The church musician, given the option, chose NOT to sing all the music at all the Masses. Maybe that was a failure on the part of the musician? Or maybe the parish's pastor told him not to, because then the priests would also have to sing? Or--most likely--it was the path of least resistance for all the players.

    Long answer to short question, and YMMV in different locations and circumstances.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    Some parts of the Mass are really most suited to be sung by a choir alone, without trying to include the whole congregation: in particular, the pieces that change from Sunday to Sunday.

    I am speaking of the entrance chant, the chant before the gospel (whether it is "alleluia" plus a verse, or a Lenten acclamation); the offertory chant, and the communion chant.

    These pieces have texts that change even daily, according to the season or the saint of the day. And each text has its own melody in the Church's official book of Gregorian melodies, the Roman Gradual, which is mentioned in the GIRM. This music is the proper music of the Roman rite, as Vatican II taught. While it's permitted for the congregation to learn and sing these several changing pieces for every occasion, it would be unrealistic to claim that the Church expects the congregation to take that task.

    On the other hand, there is so much which the congregation is called upon to sing: texts of the Mass that are relatively unchanging from day to day: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, the Universal Prayer, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation, the Pater Noster, Agnus Dei; and the dialogues with the priest in the entrance rite, at the Gospel, at the preface, before Communion, and at the blessing. A dozen parts of the Mass, some with unchanging melodies, and some with a variety of melodies that can be used. It is wonderful to see and hear congregations singing lovely decorative Gregorian melodies for the Kyrie, Gloria, etc.
  • Unimpeachable observations very well articulated!
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    Some parts of the Mass are really most suited to be sung by a choir alone, without trying to include the whole congregation: in particular, the pieces that change from Sunday to Sunday.

    I am speaking of the entrance chant, the chant before the gospel (whether it is "alleluia" plus a verse, or a Lenten acclamation); the offertory chant, and the communion chant.


    Amen. Let's not forget too that TLS and the GIRM both speak of the congregation singing "those parts which pertain to them" which clearly indicates that there are parts that are sung which do not to the congregation; or, at the very least don't necessarily have to be performed by them even if they could be.

    TLS also exhorts,
    27. Let care be taken to restore, at least in the principal churches, the ancient Scholae Cantorum, as has been done with excellent fruit in a great many places. It is not difficult for a zealous clergy to institute such Scholae even in smaller churches and country parishes, nay, in these last the pastors will find a very easy means of gathering around them both children and adults, to their own profit and the edification of the people.


    This very clearly states that a particular group of highly trained singers should be fostered to have a special role in song in even small country parishes. This also means that they should be singing special things with the congregation silent.

    This is stated in a more nuanced way earlier in the document:
    8. As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every liturgical function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others selected at will, or to omit them either entirely or even in part, unless when the rubrics allow that some versicles of the text be supplied with the organ, while these versicles are simply recited in the choir. [Here "choir" likely means true liturgical choir, ie-clergy, but could certainly be extended to a literal choir, just as the responses of the people are said by the altar servers in the TLM] However, it is permissible, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted, after the Offertory prescribed for the mass has been sung, to execute during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the Church.

    9. The liturgical text must be sung as it is in the books, without alteration or inversion of the words, without undue repetition, without breaking syllables, and always in a manner intelligible to the faithful who listen.


    The emphases are obviously mine, but it bears repeating that Pius X is encouraging motets to be sung (the congregation can't do that) and simply asks for the text to be intelligible to those who are listening.

    Suffice it to say, this certainly challenges the old trope that "active participation" requires "doing" something. Earlier in the thread someone stated that you can zone out at a concert. Indeed, you can zone out during the recitation of the Gospel too. And that's on you. But if you don't zone out, you're certainly actively participating in what is happening at Mass. There's a choice to be made, but "active participation" does *not* mean talking/walking/moving/reading/etc. It means engaging in the liturgy with your heart and your brain.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen RedPop4
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 1,048
    As others have pointed out elsewhere, the GIRM is more descriptive than prescriptive - that is, it describes what is allowed rather than pointing out what is preferable, proper, or more fitting. It's a "user's manual" that does not necessarily tell us what is best or closest to what the Church lays out as ideal. So reading the four options it gives for the entrance chant, for example, one might think that the proper chants are simply one option among others which are equally a part of the Mass. However, looking at the larger context of the liturgical tradition of the Church and what she has taught about music in the liturgy, a different picture emerges.

    The proper texts of the day, though they can be omitted in favor of a hymn, are a part of the Mass while hymns are not. Further, as Vatican II has said, chant is "specially suited to the Roman liturgy" and so "other things being equal, it should be given pride of place [or, "the first place"] in liturgical services." As the propers set to Gregorian chant are sung by the choir or schola, it's correct to say that the propers "belong" to the choir.

    True enough, this is not said in an absolute, legal sense, since they can be sung by the congregation in a simpler form, or be replaced by hymns, or be omitted, etc. But the question shouldn't be "what can I do that works best for me within the legal framework of the liturgy" but - based on the principles and directives the Church herself has laid out, what does she hold up as the most fitting - and use that as the goal and measure. Otherwise we are left with the bard rules, which are not enough to guide us to where the Church wants us to go.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,886
    To further quote Chonak,
    While it's permitted for the congregation to learn and sing these several changing pieces for every occasion, it would be unrealistic to claim that the Church expects the congregation to take that task.

    On the other hand, there is so much which the congregation is called upon to sing: texts of the Mass that are relatively unchanging from day to day: Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, the Universal Prayer, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation, the Pater Noster, Agnus Dei; and the dialogues with the priest in the entrance rite, at the Gospel, at the preface, before Communion, and at the blessing. A dozen parts of the Mass, some with unchanging melodies, and some with a variety of melodies that can be used. It is wonderful to see and hear congregations singing lovely decorative Gregorian melodies for the Kyrie, Gloria, etc.


    Indeed. I think this is partly to explain why the Church has proposed certain common seasonal psalms, for instance. So a few could be reasonably learned (well) by a congregation of modest means.

    To continue what I was expounding in my previous comment, I've long understood that the parts proper to the people is the ordinary. These are the common, universal "hymns" (at least the Gloria is so called in the GIRM) which EVERYONE should know. But there are distinct roles in the liturgy: the priest has one role, altar servers another, lectors yet another still, and then there is the schola and the congregation, which sometimes overlap, and sometimes do not.
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    "active participation" does *not* mean talking/walking/moving/reading/etc. It means engaging in the liturgy with your heart and your brain.
    Raising your heart and mind to God.

  • And 'raising your heart and mind to God' can be done equally by singing a hymn with one's voice, or spiritually experiencing an anthem with one's brain. Both are full and active 'participation' The hearer and listener of music is inevitably a participant in it..
  • Active participation certainly means that, in gesture, word, song and service, all the members of the community take part in an act of worship, which is anything but inert or passive. Yet active participation does not preclude the active passivity of silence, stillness and listening: indeed, it demands it. Worshippers are not passive, for instance, when listening to the readings or the homily, or following the prayers of the celebrant, and the chants and music of the liturgy. These are experiences of silence and stillness, but they are in their own way profoundly active. In a culture which neither favors nor fosters meditative quiet, the art of interior listening is learned only with difficulty. Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

    Conscious participation calls for the entire community to be properly instructed in the mysteries of the liturgy, lest the experience of worship degenerate into a form of ritualism. But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship. Nor does it mean the suppression of all subconscious experience, which is vital in a liturgy which thrives on symbols that speak to the subconscious just as they speak to the conscious. The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned. If subconscious experience is ignored in worship, an affective and devotional vacuum is created and the liturgy can become not only too verbal but also too cerebral. Yet the Roman Rite is again distinctive in the balance it strikes between a spareness and a richness of emotion: it feeds the heart and the mind, the body and the soul. It has been written with good reason that in the history of the Church all true renewal has been linked to a re-reading of the Church Fathers. And what is true in general is true of the liturgy in particular. The Fathers were pastors with a burning zeal for the task of spreading the Gospel; and therefore they were profoundly interested in all the dimensions of worship, leaving us some of the most significant and enduring texts of the Christian tradition, which are anything but the result of a barren aestheticism. The Fathers were ardent preachers, and it is hard to imagine that there can be an effective renewal of Catholic preaching, as the Council wished, without sufficient familiarity with the Patristic tradition. The Council promoted a move to a homiletic mode of preaching which would, like the Fathers, expound the biblical text in a way which opens its inexhaustible riches to the faithful. The importance that preaching has assumed in Catholic worship since the Council means that priests and deacons should be trained to make good use of the Bible. But this also involves familiarity with the whole Patristic, theological and moral tradition, as well as a penetrating knowledge of their communities and of society in general. Otherwise the impression is given of a teaching without roots and without the universal application inherent in the Gospel message. The excellent synthesis of the Church’s doctrinal wealth contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church has yet to be more widely felt as an influence on Catholic preaching.



    Pope John Paul II's speech to the Catholic Bishops of the United States of America, 9 October 1998 (the emphasis is mine): http://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/speeches/1998/october/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19981009_ad-limina-usa-2.html

    I would add that, with regards to hymnody, it wasn't always the best before Vatican II. Many hymns were (and still are, when they are sung) sappy, overly sentimental, confusing sillyness and mawkishness with good poetry and theology. Not that the situation got any better, but it wasn't that brilliant to begin with.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,821
    The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part, but this does not mean that the Latin language, and especially the chants which are so superbly adapted to the genius of the Roman Rite, should be wholly abandoned
    And what treasures, pray tell us, were so locked up and hidden from us until we reached the epiphany of VII and the NO? The only thing that was locked up was Pandora’s box, and to think you could open THAT with the keys of Peter.

    ...Wholly abandoned? No, we should only “mostly abandon” the chant. In fact a little here and a little there will hopefully remind the others that we used to be (still are?) Roman Catholic. Therefore, Jubilate Deo Y’all! That’s all you need. It’s akin to using chant like a spice on the Big Mac of the NO. Yea, we got this! Oh and by the way... (do you want fries with that?)... topless Africans are also a great addition to JPs liturgical mishmash. Remember that?

    Let’s get the better docs out on liturgy for inspection. Speeches and liturgy by recent popes have not been helping too much lately.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,782
    Words can be only words, actions can be more concrete.
    Here we see how the liturgy, though it must always be properly inculturated, must also be counter-cultural.

    Well this counter-cultural side has really been seen in the vast majority of churches for the last 50 years. I do not include playing bad 1960s music during the 1990s as being counter-cultural.
    But it does not mean a constant attempt within the liturgy itself to make the implicit explicit, since this often leads to a verbosity and informality which are alien to the Roman Rite and end by trivializing the act of worship.

    'verbosity and informality' and the 'trivializing the act of worship' I am sure I have seen this in many churches celebrating the N.O. over the last 40 years.
    The use of the vernacular has certainly opened up the treasures of the liturgy to all who take part,

    The vernacular could have opened up the Liturgy, to more people. But only if we lived in monocultures where the majority of people are native speakers of one language. As for the Treasure much seems to have been left out when we changed the Liturgy to suit the culture of the 1960s.
    Thanked by 1RedPop4
  • GerardH
    Posts: 461
    And what treasures, pray tell us, were so locked up...

    I would dare to venture that there would not be so many liturgical enthusiasts - nay, even traditionalists - if it were not for the use of the vernacular in the last 50 years. In hearing the liturgy in their own language, so many have gained a deeper understanding of the liturgy in which they participate, and this has spurred them on to learn more and more.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,467
    what treasures, pray tell us, were so locked up and hidden from us
    The ones the Council of Trent referred to (my emphases)
    Although the mass contains great instruction for the faithful people, nevertheless, it has not seemed expedient to the fathers, that it should be celebrated everywhere in the vulgar tongue. Wherefore, the ancient rite of each church, and [the rite] approved by the holy Roman Church, the mother and mistress of all churches, being in every place retained; and, that the sheep of Christ may not suffer hunger, nor the young children ask bread, and there he none who shall break it unto them,[14] the holy synod charges pastors, and all those who have the cure of souls, that they frequently, during the celebration of mass, expound, either by themselves or others, some portion of those things which are read at the mass, and that, amongst the rest, they explain some mystery of this most holy sacrifice, especially on the Lord's days and festivals.
    It should not have needed to be written into the rubrics of the Missal, but because it was not given legal form there, it was not done.