It can certainly lead to the association of Latin with discomfort and penance. In my parish, we also use Latin ordinaries and propers on high (happy?) feast days too which helps the association to not be a penitential one.

I too am careful to ensure Latin doesn't become associated with penitential seasons. People love to hate it, but nobody could say that Missa de Angelis during Eastertide is reserved, sombre or penitential

Gerard, while I agree, I would bet that my home parish would groan ‘It’s so dull!’ if we sang Missa de Angelis during Christmas or Easter seasons. Anything chant I would bet is associated with Advent and Lent ‘round these parts.

I have encountered the attitude among some that 'solemnity' includes any traditional aspects of Catholicism, from wearing a cassock to using some latin to using the confessional. The word solemnity with all the connotations of dark, sad, scary, intimidating, fussy, and so on.

In many churches the is a statue (or a chapel) of the BVM close to the sanctuary. Have the priest etc. proceed there at the end of Mass to sing Regina Coeli throughout Eastertide, starting at the vigil. That should dispel any notion of Latin being sombre.

I understand the concern about people associating chanted Latin Mass parts with penance if they are only sung during Advent and Lent. I agree that Latin Mass parts should be sung at other times too.

Yet there are realities to confront in many parishes.

I decided to introduce Gregorian chant as a regular feature of Sunday Mass music at Communion instead of starting with Mass parts at my parish, which when I took over as music director had not sung any Latin Mass parts for over 30 years. I have four brief Gregorian chant hymns that I rotate among at the start of Communion each week, all year round. That was to avoid the impression that Latin chant is for penitential seasons. No, it's for all year-round, and Gregorian chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy.

This past year I introduced the Jubilate Deo settings of the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei during Advent. There was significant blowback from some Boomers, and they raised a ruckus and threatened to leave the parish over "Latin creep" in the music. Remember, this parish hadn't sung Latin Mass parts for over thirty years.

The advantage of using Advent and Lent to introduce chanted Latin Mass parts to a community is that they can be sold as a way of appropriately simplifying the music for those seasons. That's one of the ways I try to sell it at my parish. They aren't penitential, they're simple and stark: unaccompanied singing, and all voices singing unison.

Although more people liked it than disliked it, those who disliked it were very vocal and obnoxious about it.

So, the reality is that in some parishes, such as mine, Advent and Lent are logical places to begin to introduce chanted Latin Mass parts because they are simpler than Heritage Mass or the Mass of Renewal, for example, and the change in liturgical seasons is more noticeable through the musical differences. We also sing the chanted ICEL Mass parts sometimes.

I think after a community has become accustomed to the experience of chanted Latin Mass parts in the seasons that call for simpler music, then more elaborate chant settings could be introduced for Christmas and Easter seasons.

But for many Novus Ordo parishes it will be a long road. It's difficult and takes a long time to reorient a parish's liturgical music from OCP.

Mark, keep up the good fight. I know how disheartening it can be when parishioners get like that. (I actually had someone make it all the way to the bishop about me once… had to have a 1:1 chat with the diocesan music director at the bishop’s request…)

If it’s any consolation, assuming your parish’s finances are relatively stable, sometimes it is a relief to the pastor when those souls who threaten to leave finally do.

I’ve also taken the approach with certain souls that, “your argument is not with me… it is with Holy Mother Church and 2,000 years of tradition…”

There’s also the delightful, “well, the council actually said that every parish should be chanting the entire ordinary in Latin, and Paul VI even promulgated a special booklet after the council that contained a minimum repertoire that every Catholic should know…”

This latter one always catches these types off guard, as their lived experience after the council bears little resemblance to what the council actually put to vellum. But if they are going to take the “do what the council said!!!” approach, you find yourself beyond reproach, and those who attack you are immediately revealed as misinformed, obstinate, or both.

I like the idea of singing the Regina Caeli in Eastertide, to illustrate that chant isn't sad or all the other bad adjectives which glom on to it.

One of the rejoinders I got when I took the approach recommended by some posters to gently educate people about what SC and the GIRM and Paul VI's Jubilate Deo Mass and "Sing to the Lord" (2007!) state about Latin Mass parts and the people learning and singing them was: "Well, Latin might be the language of the Church and it might be what the Church teaches should be sung, but it's not right for THIS parish!"

Oh, brother.

When I pointed out that the Kyrie, Sanctus and Agnus Dei are in the English translation of the Roman Missal in Greek and Latin with musical notation because the Church wants those parts to be sung in Greek and Latin at least sometimes at a minimum, the response I got to that was: "They might be in the Missal, but the Missal is not the Gospel!"

Oh, sheesh.

So some militant Latin-haters don't care what the rubrics state. They might be surprised to learn that such instructions are in the rubrics, but rather than saying, "Oh, okay... I understand now," after being educated, they then switch to arguing that the rubrics should be disregarded because... [reasons].

I think with those sorts their opposition is emotionally-based. They don't want reminders of the past (they're all Boomers, never anyone younger) for whatever reason, or they don't want to accept that the parish and the wider Church are returning to and restoring elements of liturgy that never should have been abandoned.

Some of you who work in parishes that exclusively celebrate Mass using the 1962 Missal might not realize what those of us go through who work in Novus Ordo parishes and are trying to turn the barge in a different direction. The aggravation is not pleasant.

I'll repeat, though: I got many, many more compliments and appreciation than complaints. But the pastor received more complaints. I started telling the people who told me that they liked the reintroduction of Latin Mass parts to tell the pastor so he would hear from them too. I told the pastor that I wasn't going to let Latin haters bully the parish and those who like Latin at Mass into eliminating Latin.

I was fortunate to be able to say, "the pastor said do this. His name is on my check, not yours."

To follow up on what Stimson pointed out, I think this is the real issue to confront here. For a while, there was this idea that the liturgy should confirm to us and our own feelings. The real battle isn't so much one of rubrics or documents, but one of emotions about liturgy. Once we can correct this, following the rubrics will fall into line. As it has been pointed out, it is largely the older generation that holds this position. The emotional mindset is, quite literally, dying out as the baby boomer generation ages. Over the next 20ish years, I think we will see a much more traditional group of clerics rise to leadership in the church. The current group of younger priests (newly ordained, but also even those ordained within the past 15 years) has more traditional leanings, so the church will likely change as they become pastors and bishops. I think a lot of liturgical renewal will be driven simply by the baby boomer priests retiring and younger ones taking their place.

There is a traditional ethos behind using the Latin chants for penitential seasons that sadly gets entirely misinterpreted. It is a tradition of the Roman church to return to older forms of celebration during penitential seasons. This isn’t because the old is sad and bitter, but because the new is indulgent. Simply not going out to Outback Steakhouse is not the same thing as giving up meat on Fridays. All non-chant is the steak house.

I can think of 2 examples of what John_F_Church says, but not sure if they’re what he’s thinking of?

1) Lent 1 tract: extremely long, almost a whole psalm
2) Good Friday solemn afternoon liturgy is very antique in its structure: the many petitions, communion from the presanctified gifts….

I was going to suggest more chant and Latin during Lent at my parish, but I worried about the relating chant and Latin to being penitential. It’s true that in the EF the Gradual and Tracts are purposely longer to allow for longer meditation on the chants (I’ve missed the 15 minute long gradual and tract for the 1st Sunday of Lent), but we shouldn’t associate chant and Latin with penance.

I think that most in the congregation don't really think of Lent and Advent as penitential seasons. For them the use of Latin just makes them realize this is not 'Ordinary Time' (which they seem to think starts at Christmas and then at Easter).

Why not use Latin for from the beginning of Advent until the Feast of the Baptism of Our Lord and from Ash Wednesday until Pentecost? That way it differentiates from Ordinary Time and is associated with both penitential and celebratory seasons.