I dropped offertory hymns some time ago and no one has complained. The congregation generally thought 4 hymns were too many, and someone even commented, "You are singng us to death." I think we musicians forget everyone is not dying to sing something at every moment. I use varying combinations of solos, choir pieces, and organ pieces during that time, along with some silence. I did reinstate sung English communion antiphons a few month ago and they have been hugely successful. They are followed by a communion hymn, or sometimes a choir selection. Around communion time, organ solos are generally used as "cover" while the choir receives communion, or while the second offering is being taken after communion.

See, I don't understand this. The cantors are not in charge - at least mine aren't. They lead singing on the parts that are listed on the program for them to lead, or that have my approval for them to lead. They don't add or take away anything. They don't plan the music. From time to time one will sing a solo at offertory, but that's planned, too.

I have even concluded that at the average mass, there is sometimes too much congregational singing. At least it's more than I would want to do if I were in the congregation. Scholas and choirs have a legitimate place in the liturgy, and I certainly use them, along with the organ - it has a legitimate place, too.

Come on people, PaixGioaAmor is *not* asking about whether it is appropriate to SING or not at these places, the question asked is whether it is OK to use *instrumental music* at that point instead. An excellent question which I have never really considered before, although I have certainly done that. While STTL allows it, what about the vagueness of the other documents?

Who has a link to that GHASTLY playing of a Hammond Organ playing the Mediation from Thais during the consecration by the lady in Brazil?

I hadn't heard the Meditation from Thais - an OK piece of music, just not so for church - so I must have missed that link. I did find photocopies in my file cabinets with words set to Edelweiss. After getting over the shock that one of my predecessors would do something that totally asinine, I realized the copies were illegal and tossed them.

To get to your quandry~
In the Ordinary Form, Offertory and Communion chants (or hymns used as substitutes) serve a liturgical function- to cover the liturgical action, which is the procession in both cases. (Even though sometimes gifts are not brought up during the Offertory.)

Singing can take place during the processions as long as possible, for the duration of the chant, and verses can be added to prolong the singing (Communio is designed for this). Then the time can be filled out with instrumental music. Organ improvisation is especially useful, and beautifully suited to this purpose.

Having ONLY instrumental music at the Offertory or Communion is not listed as one of the four options, so I think you are correct that this is problematic. Not that I wouldn't *prefer* to hear the organ played over some mediocre or theologically flabby hymn, but in fact that is not an option in the GIRM. SttL does not contradict this if you consider instrumental music as filling out the time after the singing of one of the four options. Of course, wherever SttL might possibly contradict the GIRM, remember that GIRM has authority that SttL does not.

And I thought tax code was confusing.

I had a chance to go to Byzantine Mass a couple of month ago. And the lady next to me was very kind to help me to follow the singing. She knew everything by memory. She sang very prayerfully and joyfully. (although she didn't have the best voice, and didn't shout to my ear, it was very beautiful. I don't know why our church always asks the congregation to sing so loud. It is most distracting to me. I noticed in our church whenever they find the song they like, they start to shout, and if they don't like the song, they put the hymnal back. Why people think the music in our Mass should be chosen according to their tastes?)
If the Catholic church congregations are taught to sing the Responses and listen to the Propers, it would be so prayerful and easier to focus on the Mass.

Charles holds the key to getting a congregation to sing. The music never changes.

The musicians in the Catholic church kill the singing by expecting the congregation to be as active as monks and nuns in monastery. It's that simple.

STTL further compounds this by encouraging the practice.

The organ, as Jeffrey has rather eloquently written, has its own voice. It may play, but when it plays music based upon the music that is sung, its voice is richer. It's yet another wordless interpretation of the melody and brings the prayer of the unsung words to the mind,

Charles, This is the way we do at my church- We sing Proulx 'Community Mass,' in the Fall and Spring before Choir quits for the summer, Chant Mass for Advent and Lent, and the dreaded 'Mess of Cremation' in July when we have many visitors. Also we sing that 'Gloria' by Lee occasionally. I have always felt the ordinary parts should be by same composer, but this lets out much good service music . How do you feel about this? I'd like to do the Schubert 'Sanctus' sometimes, or any of an assortment of Amens, but always hesitate. My choir members bring me programs from other churches and I see a great variety of responses, some written by the Organist/choirmaster. Is there some unwritten rule about this? Or possibly a written rule?? :)

Donna

And to the topic at hand, I realized I had never questioned the practice of substituting instrumental music for the processions.

But i would think the fact that it is expressly forbidden in the Ceremonial of Bishops for Funeral and Lenten Masses is a pretty good indication that it is licit at other times and isn't explicitly mentioned in the GIRM only because it was thought to "go without saying"?

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

"But i would think the fact that it is expressly forbidden" [exact quote please?] "in the Ceremonial of Bishops for Funeral and Lenten Masses is a pretty good indication that it is licit at other times and isn't explicitly mentioned in the GIRM only because it was thought to "go without saying"?"

Why can't one extend this to replacing the ordinary with organ music as well? The only time the GIRM says not to play the organ is when the priest is chanting. It "goes without saying" that we can just play the Bach Allein Gott trio instead of the Gloria! (After all, we do have the venerable tradition of the French organ Mass)

Let me be crystal clear: I would love for this to be true - that we can replace the processional chants with organ music. And I'll add that the rubric stating that the processional chant (or an authorized replacement) should be sung is one I have violated for organ music, and may well do the same in the future. HOWEVER I'm not going to pretend that's something legislatively acceptable until I SEE the "Fifth option" (which is what it is!) that we're discussing.

By all means, if you want to do a legal organ solo at Mass, sing the antiphon quickly and then play. But IF ONE OMITS THE TEXT OF THE MASS, one is violating the rubrics. UNTIL I see legislation stating that the chants (or their lawful replacement) may be omitted, I will maintain that the before-stated IS the legislation of the current Roman Rite. I judge such a violator kindly, others may not, but they are still not following the rubrics.

The OF's GIRM cites Musicam sacram in the footnotes, so it seems to still be in force.

As for the EF, the old indult and the new motu proprio are for the 1962 Missal, with the norms in use at the time.

On the other hand, the Ecclesia Dei commission has been fairly generous in granting permission to bend or waive various rules, so they probably have no objection to doing anything prescribed by Musicam sacram.

Aha. I suppose it is acceptable!

I would argue it's somewhat in violation of the SPIRIT of the law, but I suppose given its appearance in the appendix and MS, it must be allowed.

The only time the GIRM says not to play the organ is when the priest is chanting. It "goes without saying" that we can just play the Bach Allein Gott trio instead of the Gloria!

Ummm.... if you have a setting of the Gloria that "goes with" the Bach Trio, knock yourself out, maybe it exists (I have a setting of the Gloria to the Widor Toccata, for example.)

BUT - although I can't swear to the wording, I am almost positive that there are authoritative documents that say essentially that liturgical music shouldn't be "bad" or "ugly" or "stupid", (although it is probably prescribed in a positive, rather than a negative manner,) which would preclude playing the Bach while you snag, say, a Leon Roberts setting, or the Miss de Angelis.

And you can't use the Bach INSTEAD of a part of the ordinary because it is specifically stated many times in many documents that it is illicit to substitute other things for the parts of the Ordinary.

Musica Sacra, a VCII doc, was intended to apply to the new missal that was then in the works, so to speak.

And I'm neither canonist nor liturgist nor really an EF person, but my sense in looking back on it all is that in the day more flexibility in the degrees of sung Mass was intended, so it doesn't surprise me that chonak says that "the Ecclesia Dei commission has been fairly generous in granting permission to bend or waive various rules."

I don't think a gentle little Benoit elevation at communion time violates the "spirit" of the rules at all.

Again, not a canonist nor liturgist nor EF person, but my sense is that the Church's way is and always has been to allow a great deal of latitude with the (perhaps naive) assumption that everyone will use his common sense.

So it isn't until, say, Sousa's Liberty Bell March played by a steel drum band becomes the default communion procession music in some part of the world that Rome thinks it necessary to step in and get more specific with Her DOs and DON'Ts.

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

My predecessor believed in the Guitar as a Liturgical Instrument, elevated by Stuebenville, I believe. Sometimes It is embarassing to be from Ohio.

The organ does have a liturgical voice, only losing it when it takes the tremolo of a long-past-her prime Wagnerian soprano...as in Mr. Chonak's example. A major difference in the church organ and the theatre organ is that the TO most often uses far fewer pipes but plays them at a higher pressure, to give an equal or louder volume than a CO. And, since the tremolo works by a little trap that lets air escape from the air line or chest at a regular speed, the higher pressure, the wider the pitch shift in the tremolo along with a large drop in volume.

CO tremulant: Pitch Modulation - TO tremulant Pitch and Volume Modulation

And the GIRM says that the Communio should be sung. It's too bad it does not stop there

The Faith can overcome bad music.

Gavin, it is my understanding that MS is binding only in the OF.

You also asked, 'can one omit the propers at High Mass after 1967?' My understanding is no, omitting propers is not permitted.

frogman: "Who has a link ... playing ... during the consecration"

Use the forum Search (Comments): massenet thais meditation

It beats the Frankenstein song, "We Are Many Parts," any day. ;-)