M. Jackson Osborn: “From generation unto generation, from the beginning of time, it has been the priest's prerogative to intone both Gloria and Credo.”
It is intoned by the Priest or, if appropriate, by a cantor or by the choir.
But in the heady, post-Vatican I era of Ultra-Ultramontanism, every sniffle of the Pope being considered infallible, The Motu was considered as Universal Legislation, at least in the USA: Some local pronouncements of diocesan musicians (the most prominent being Italian, by the way) in the USA seem to regard TLS as having arrived on the scene much in the same way as the Ten Commandments.However that is not say that the Pope's opinion is without weight.
TLS is not universal legislation. It was written in Italian precisely because it is an instruction for the diocese of Rome, from the bishop to his episcopal vicar. It does not claim to be liturgical law except for the diocese, and has none of the customary legal phrases which would extend its application elsewhere.
My, how times have changed! Still a hard and fast rule for the TLM though.But in any case the choir may never repeat the celebrant's words. Every Gloria in a figured Mass must begin: "Et in terra pax". The custom — once very common — of ignoring the celebrant and beginning again "Gloria in excelsis" is an unpardonable abomination that should be put down without mercy, if it still exists anywhere.
While I am feeling provocative - TLS is not universal legislation. It was written in Italian precisely because it is an instruction for the diocese of Rome, from the bishop to his episcopal vicar. It does not claim to be liturgical law except for the diocese, and has none of the customary legal phrases which would extend its application elsewhere. However that is not say that the Pope's opinion is without weight.
In our times too, the chief object of Pope Pius X, in the Motu Proprio [Tra le Sollecitudini] which he issued twenty-five years ago, making certain prescriptions concerning Gregorian Chant and sacred music, was to arouse and foster a Christian spirit in the faithful, by wisely excluding all that might ill befit the sacredness and majesty of our churches.
...
It is, however, to be deplored that these most wise laws in some places have not been fully observed, and therefore their intended results not obtained. We know that some have declared these laws, though so solemnly promulgated, were not binding upon their obedience. Others obeyed them at first, but have since come gradually to give countenance to a type of music which should be altogether banned from our churches. In some cases, especially when the memory of some famous musician was being celebrated, the opportunity has been taken of performing in church certain works which, however excellent, should never have been performed there, since they were entirely out of keeping with the sacredness of the place and of the Liturgy.
In order to urge the clergy and faithful to a more scrupulous observance of these laws and directions which are to be carefully obeyed by the whole Church, We think it opportune to set down here something of the fruits of Our experience during the last twenty-five years.
See Fr. Anthony Ruff's Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform, pp. 280–283, footnotes 30–36, which should be available as a preview in Google Books.I'd like to know more about these exceptions, though. Is there anything you can point me to?
Fr. Anthony Ruff's Sacred Music and Liturgical Reform
Perhaps you meant to put this in purple? Such as normally implies a broader range of inclusion than the terms that follow it.Alas, poor oboe, bassoon, French horn, trombone, and tuba. I guess Anton Bruckner's lovely Mass No. 2 in E minor would not have been allowed.
Whether St. Pius X intended for TLS to bind the universal Church or not, it needs to be kept in mind that he began making exceptions almost immediately, starting with Vienna
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.