Setting the Sanctus
  • From the "Installation" thread I'm happy to receive Kathy's very insightful remarks, prompted by the concerns of Jeffrey and others, regarding the "problem of ownership" of the Sanctus. Her insight simultaneously reminds us of both the liturgical and theological aspects that attend the moment and performance of the Sanctus at Mass. (I do wonder if the discussion of the affect of singing the Proulx setting at the installation Mass in DC would have had such reaction and traction if the Sanctus of Mass XVIII was sung in its stead? Same question for the truncated Proulx setting of the Schubert "Deutche Messe?" Would the liturgical moment have been more or less elevated in relationship to the ideals with those choices?)
    I've mentioned elsewhere that the Sanctus from Faure's REQUIEM epitomizes that enjoining of heaven and earth in and beyond time for me. Whether or not I'm singing it in the choir or listening to it in concert or liturgy, that setting most rings my bells. Putting aside the fact that it demands a choral-only rendition, I would want to know if the affect of the Faure could be made manifest in a Sanctus that includes congregational participation as well?
    I'm also putting aside, for brevity's sake, any concern about the argument for the choral/polyphonic Ordinary being occasionally appropriate in toto. I just want to concentrate on aspects that more or less that avoid pitting utility and aesthetics at odds. (A hat tip to Msgr. Mannion's five models of lit-mus.)
    One of the first settings of the Holy in the post-SLJ era that captured my attention for having something similar in affect to the Faure was Bob Hurd's setting of the EA's on his collection "Roll Down the Ages." It seemed then and still now that the terraced rising of the "Holy" motive (very simple scalewise motion) partnered to the arpeggiated, semi-ambiguous major I to minor v harmonic accompaniment emulated the ephemeral beginning of the Faure. Of course the Hurd, being mindful of its utility, moves the text and musical setting along unlike the Faure. But I've interpreted the Hurd as emphasizing the power of the word "Holy" as its setting rises in intensity to "God of power and might." A new motive accompanies Hurd's "heaven and earth are filled" which is not difficult for a congregation to render at all, but is accomplished with a brief tonal center shift that Hurd then leads to another "Faure moment"- the "Hosanna." I'm not suggesting the Hurd matches the majesty of the Faure, I'm saying that it elevates the ideal, moment and cosmic unity in its own similar way. I now cease to discuss the Hurd specifically here, but my point is that I have yet to find, in most if not virtually all of the big gun publisher English settings, any other setting that resonates with the "perfection" I feel in the Faure. Like Gavin, gun to the head I'll take the Proulx "City" over his "Community" in a heartbeat; that puts me at odds with a majority of tradtionally oriented DM's already. I'll make the best of MOC (which I never use except at funerals/weddings; can't be helped) rather than the box step of the composite SLJ Mass of the 70's. I'll give props to Janco for upping thte ante with "Angels and Saints" except that its repeated Michel Legrand melodic motives in 6/8 (that's Masonic? Wow, where'd that come from?) are too lugubrious and grow wearisome from incessant repetition. But that beats down the contrivance known as the "Celtic Mass" which doesn't contain any melodic motives as I recognize them at all, save for the movement that its author "borrowed" supposedly for a cantus firmus for the "new Mass on the block in the 90's.) Yikes, what a mess.
    Now back to the issue of whether the Sanctus' demands of both utility and aesthetics can be met- one of the other settings I've mentioned here in the past is Rv. Schiavone's "Mass of the Holy Family" (OCP.) As he does throughout this brevis setting, he establishes a "refrain" ideal using a very decent and accessible melodic motif that he deploys for, if you will, super-moments in the text declamation. Between those moments, the choir alternates with some lovely, not profound, choral polyphonic sections. This Schiavone setting is much more successful with this integration than, say, Proulx's choral codas to popular "Amens" such as the Danish, the Dresden, etc. he published with GIA in the 80's. That set, along with some other ordinary settings I can't specifically name now at home, is analagous to putting a Dior gown on a mannequin. Another problem that has occured in modern English settings that have a sort of antiphonal construct, is that the congregational melodies that are, as I said, crafted to be "lovely" are generally set with equally lovely harmonic accompaniments. But when the choral only section arrives, suddenly the choir and organ are negotiating Bartok and Stravinsky-esque choral harmonies that obscure, if not obliterate the simple beauty that preceded it.
    The word "hackneyed" comes to mind when I think of major Masses to hit the newsprints in the last two decades. And some of my own settings would so likely be regarded, in retrospect.

    When the new translation texts are promulgated, I would hope that composers will remember that choirs exist not only to assist the congregation in singing whatever is rightfully theirs to sing, but to add a specific ideal of beauty to each and every musical moment. I would think that composers might benefit by studying how composers in all eras (including polyphony) treated specific textual elements and apply their compositional vocabularies to seemlessly calling forth the abilities of both congregations and choirs. Isn't that what is literally called for by the invocation to the Sanctus?
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    6/8 is not masonic. But I have thought in lighter moments, that the big three publishers and some contemporary composers must belong to a secret society hell-bent on destroying liturgical music. They've done so much damage, it's hard to believe it was an accident.
  • Well, CW, don't blame the Beatles for the creation of Herman's Hermits! ;-)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    Charles, I was kidding, not serious on the plot. However, I can't in good concience blame anyone for Herman's Hermits. ;-) I'm afraid they have themselves to blame.
  • I knew that, Charles! Just having some fun. I liked your point in the original thread, per the GIRM.
    So far this is the "Charles" thread, BTW.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,499
    Charles #1,

    I wish you wouldn't talk smack about herman's hermits.

    However, I think you are asking all the right questions about the composition of a congregational Sanctus. And I don't think I've heard any right answers yet, although John Schiavone's contributions are usually worth considering. I'm going to do that.

    Perhaps most of the current Holy Holys begin very confidently. Does this sound right? And the common motif is often: rising. (City rises through a chromatic scale, I believe.) Whereas the chanted Sanctuses I know begin tentatively, searchingly. The lateral development is complex; the direction changes often across the melodic line, not primarily at cadences but throughout.

    (At this point I've exhausted my undertanding and vocabulary. Carry on!)
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I am rather curious as to what the new translations will do to existing musical settings. I can hope we will get some new settings that "sing" a bit better, for lack of a better term.
  • Who's Charles #1? Didn't St. Paul say there was neither Charles 1 nor Charles 2?
    CharlesW and I both qualify for inclusion in "We are many parts...", you know the Frankenstein song! (That cracked me up when I first read it.)
    To yer point- I wasn't giving Mr. Noone's enterprise "smack," as you say. I was just saying that assignation of the organic geneology of musical genres cannot always be attributed to many characteristics held in common. You know, Liverpudlian accents, moptop hairstyles, skinny ties and suits, cute and cuddly presence, what what. Genus is more often determined by genius.
    Thanks for the support regarding composers, in the near future, keeping all ideal options on the table when they set this particular movement in the Ordinary. I was glad that Jeffrey posted the canonical interpretation.
    CCA
  • IanWIanW
    Posts: 756
    Charles in CenCA,

    Wearing transparent platforms so capacious he could fill them with water and put goldish in them was a touch of genius on Peter Noone's part, if nothing else.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 774
    Leaving aside the question of whether the Ordinary should be set responsorially (the sort of functionalism that typifies modern liturgy), I would plead with all music directors who deign to use the David Hurd New Plainsong Mass (for my money, the finest English setting of the Ordinary for the modern Roman Missal that you can find): For heaven's sake, let it be! I have occasionally endured the machinations of Shrine liturgies, with their bigness imperative, even to subjecting the solemn subtleties of Hurd to the inevitable organ fanfare / brass and tympani / choral society / soprano descant enhancements. At some point, in these efforts to make his Mass "New", it ceases to be "Plainsong". Which may be the point, in a liturgical environment that measures solemnity in decibels.
  • Thank you, Richard, for highlighting that most common and irritating penchant of TPTB who "design" these mega-liturgies. Your instruction reminded me of the one component missing from nearly all of the papal liturgies of recent years, such as those that ranged from National's Stadium to St. Patrick's to the WYD in Australia, namely "humility."
    Or as G and Kathy have recently offered up- noble simplicity.
    I would like to clarify that I wasn't encouraging or endorsing the pracitce of setting the Sanctus or any other movements of the Ordinary "responsorially" per se. And trying to clarify exactly how to fold in congregational participation into a worthy choral enterprise would likely result in semantical debates. That said, do you see, if my proposal seems at cogent to you, any "there, there?" (Thanks, Gertrude Stein/Alice B. Toklas)
    Speaking of old socialists, all you youngsters, Ian's comment proves that the Piaget Curve is real. When we get older, we really do focus haplessly upon the weirder aspects of our lives. So just y'all wait.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,499
    Yesterday I taught a dozen treble children to sing the Sanctus from the Missa Orbis Factor. At the moment, I can't understand why any other option is required.
  • Kathy, the rationale for starting this thread, on my part, centered upon what factors are in play when discussing the relative appropriateness of employing one Sanctus setting over all others within the context of the other Ordinary movements at a given Mass, ie. the installation Mass at the Shrine. And, of course, as mentioned in this thread and the other related one, you and I are in complete agreement about the theological implications about the Sanctus in particular that require even more attention. So, whether discussing existing settings in the myriad of "styles" of many eras, languages and cultures, or those to come, the discussion is about attributes that also take into account "who" ought be singing the Sanctus.
    I appreciate and empathize with the reverie you express above; but the Church does not only allow other options, but encourages the ongoing re-creation of new settings. That's where I was coming from. But again, congratulations to your kids and to you for carrying the fire.
  • The Eucharistic Prayer, from Sursum corda to final Amen, is a single liturgical unit. The Sanctus is an acclamation within this unit. It developed into something else only after the greater part of the Canon came to be recited silently, and the silence created a "vacuum" that could be filled by more elaborate music.

    The unity and the doxological character of the Eucharistic Prayer are best manifested when the WHOLE prayer is sung and the Sanctus is sung to a melody related to the music used for the rest of the prayer. Sanctus XVIII and Sanctus I both work very well with the Eucharistic Prayer chant formulas given in the Roman Missal. The Hymnal 1982 contains an English Sanctus based upon the Sanctus section of the Te Deum that also works well. We used this setting exclusively for several years; but recently some parishioners recalled that we used to sing "more joyful" settings, and the music director has acquiesced to their request that these be used sometimes.

    People do not grasp the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer. Nothing about the way it is rendered in most places makes it obvious.

    I have read Ratzinger/Benedict's essays about the virtual of the choral Sanctus, but I do not find them persuasive. When the preface is sung to chant, the Sanctus is sung to a choral setting, and the remainder of the prayer is recited in the natural voice, a single liturgical unit is fragmented into three.

    Why should we care? Because the Eucharist is our "sacrificium laudis." Throughout much of the past millennium the connection between "sacrificium" and "laudis" were lost. Sacrifice was understood almost exclusively in relation to expiation. This distortion contributed greatly to Reformation controversies about eucharistic sacrifice. In the Roman Canon the "eucharistia" is confined almost exclusively to the preface and Sanctus. The separation of these from the oblationary prayers that follow is probably what gave rise to the impoverished theology of eucharistic sacrifice that prevailed in the West during the late Middle Ages.

    The post-Conciliar rites give us an opportunity to repair the damage. Few, unfortunately, care to be bothered.

    I believe that looking for Sanctus settings as if they were Gloria settings is a mistake. The Sanctus should be sung to anaphoral chant.
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    Wearing transparent platforms so capacious he could fill them with water and put goldish in them was a touch of genius on Peter Noone's part, if nothing else.

    I am soooooooo lost.....

    (Save the Liturgy, save the World)
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Mr. Ford I agree with almost everything what you said, but do you think that choral Sanctus, which we join to the song of angels, and that is sung after the priest chant (solo) is breaking a unity? I think the drama and action can be united with recitative, aria and chorus beautifully in many ways. I really don't think having choral Sanctus necessarily break the unity. It depends on how and what kind of music you use. Many contemporary aprupt Sanctus, that supposed to encourage congregational singing, seem to break the unity more than ever.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,499
    I agree with Mia. Although I think that unity and coherence are called for throughout the Mass--not only in the immediate time-vicinity of the Eucharistic prayer but from beginning to end--I don't believe that the only musical way to accomplish coherence is by uniformity. I think a certain flexibilty of form is possible.

    I also agree with G.
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    The unity of the preface and the Sanctus is obvious, because the priest leads into it with something along the lines of, "Which the Angels and Archangels, the Cherubim also and the Seraphim do praise: who cease not daily to cry out, with one voice saying:" ...so even if you switch to a different setting, from chant to something choral, what is said leads very directly into the Sanctus; it's not even a finished sentence without the Sanctus.

    The canon doesn't flow straight from the Sanctus though. In the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, the next prayer goes, "With these blessed powers, O Master who lovest mankind, we also cry aloud and say..." and there follows the Eucharistic prayer, which is different from the West, of course. The Mass goes into, "Most merciful Father, we humbly pray and beseech Thee..." which doesn't seem to come naturally from the Sanctus. Since that's so, I would think the best way to maintain the unity you want for that "liturgical unit" would be for all the responses during the canon to be set the same way... but there aren't very many responses during the canon, are there. There's the memorial acclamation and the "great amen"... making those match the Sanctus while the canon is chanted by the priest, that could work. I'm just thinking about in Divine Liturgy, how in our parish from the anaphora through the epiclesis the responses all seem to match each other, which does seem to set that part of the liturgy apart in its function.
  • The unity (as far as logical flow is concerned) of the preface, Sanctus, and Roman Canon hinges on the word "igitur" (therefore, consequently, for this reason).

    "Whom the Angels and Archangels, Cherubim also and Seraphim do praise:
    who cease not daily to cry out with one voice, saying:

    "Holy, Holy, Holy…
    Hosanna in the highest." (No Benedictus*)

    "Te igitur, clementissime Pater…" (Latin Roman Canon)
    "We come to you, Father…" (current ICEL Roman Canon — abrupt)
    "To you, therefore, most merciful Father…" (proposed ICEL Roman Canon — clear flow)

    None of the other EPs seem to have this flow in mind, either in the Latin or the translation. To their detriment, in my opinion.

    As far as the ramifications of this for future choral settings in the Ordinary Form go, perhaps one solution may be to compose more compact settings of the Sanctus/Benedictus (I have in mind Byrd's setting of the Passion of St. John as a model of economy), written under the assumption/requirement/understanding that everything from the Preface Dialogue to the Great Amen is to be sung according to the ritual formulas as found in the Missal.

    Nothing makes this unified prayer feel more disjointed than the sing-speak-sing-speak-sing-speak-sing experience one finds in 99% of Ordinary Form Masses as currently celebrated. It took me a long time to understand it was a unified prayer, and it wasn't until I went to a through-sung OF Mass that this fact was conveyed to me explicitly in its very execution.
  • mjballoumjballou
    Posts: 993
    Thanks, Aristotle, for the clarification by way of the Roman Canon and its ICEL translation. I've never understood why the Latin Rite Eucharistic Prayer seemed so "jerky" vs. the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom (or St. Basil). Now I do. And you're absolutely 100% on the money about the complete change that a through-sung OF Mass has in restoring that sense of continuity and unity.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 774
    One can lament history and argue theological impoverishment all one wants. The fact remains that, for the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite: a) the Canon is recited silently; b) the custom of elaborated choral Sanctus and Benedictus is centuries old; and c) this expression of Catholic worship and piety has inspired artists, nourished saints, and brought glory and honor to God. In mounting his defense of the choral Sanctus, Cardinal Ratzinger is motivated by these facts, as are most of us attached to the traditional Mass. Please continue to voice your preference, and vigorously defend it. But please refrain from moral and ritual absolutes that disparage the reality of lived (and living) Catholic tradition and its adherents.
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    Thank you Richard. (By the way your music for R. psalm for this Sunday is beautiful!)
  • JamJam
    Posts: 636
    Nothing makes this unified prayer feel more disjointed than the sing-speak-sing-speak-sing-speak-sing experience one finds in 99% of Ordinary Form Masses as currently celebrated. It took me a long time to understand it was a unified prayer, and it wasn't until I went to a through-sung OF Mass that this fact was conveyed to me explicitly in its very execution.


    I agree about the switch from speaking to singing and back being very disjointed, but I do think that going from chant to polyphony to hymnody back to chant is achievable without being abrupt or strange. If the priest chanted all his parts in a similar way, and led into the polyphonic/choral pieces for ordinaries/propers, it actually has a really nice effect, and sets different prayers in a different light while still maintaining the unity of a Mass which each piece flows properly into the next. The Creed and the Our Father can be recited in a similar vein, taking into account their original purpose and meaning, but I don't think any more than that in the Mass should be recited if at all possible.
  • As far as the EF goes, I do not view the sotto voce praying of the canon as something disjointed, but rather, as some have explained it (or rationalized it, depending on ones POV) a manifestation of the multi-layered nature of the Extraordinary Form Mass.

    I do think that going from chant to polyphony to hymnody back to chant is achievable without being abrupt or strange.


    Agreed.
  • G
    Posts: 1,397
    Nothing makes this unified prayer feel more disjointed than the sing-speak-sing-speak-sing-speak-sing experience one finds in 99% of Ordinary Form Masses as currently celebrated. It took me a long time to understand it was a unified prayer, and it wasn't until I went to a through-sung OF Mass that this fact was conveyed to me explicitly in its very execution.


    Exactly -- noble simplicity, every component a fitting and fitted part of a unified whole, structural integrity.

    Were this maintained, the (sadly typical now,) shoehorning into the Mass of everything from the reading of the parish financial report to parish's prettiest baby contest to talent show styled "and now, a performance from our kindergartners" moments would become unthinkable.

    (Okay, I've never actually "seen the "prettiest baby" thing done, but I have the other two.)

    As it stands now, the Sacrum Convivium often feels more like a pot-luck, or worse a progressive dinner.
    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,499
    ISTM that the continuity of a Missa Cantata (EF) comes precisely from the overlapping layers. Something--music or actions--is always carrying us forward through the Mass.
  • The insertion of the Sanctus and the final portion of the preface (which leads up to the Sanctus) obscured the significance of the "igitur" in "Te igitur clementissime Pater.."

    The sequence, "Vere dignum ...Te quidem, Domine, omni tempore, sed in hac potissimum die glorius pradicare, cum Pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus. Ipse enim verus est Agnus qui abstulit peccata mundi. Qui mortem nostram moriendo destruxit et vitam resurgendo reparavit. TE IGITUR clementissime Pater" was easy to follow. At some time in the fifth century the Sanctus and related prefatory matter were inserted.

    I do not suppose that anyone would like to see the Sanctus removed; but the addition of a post-Sanctus, such as the one composed for Eucharistic Prayer III, would be helpful in re-establishing the connection between the preface and the prayers of offering.

    1.Vere dignum....
    2. Proper preface
    3. Et ideo (or whatever)
    4. Sanctus...
    5. Vere sanctus es, Domine ... ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo.
    6. Te igitur clementissime Pater...

    Richard R: I was not commenting about the use of a choral Sanctus in connection with the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman rite, in which the Canon is recited silently. My contention is that the rendering three parts of AUDIBLE eucharistic prayers in three different ways obscures the unity of the prayers, and that the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer, of itself, has theological implications.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    IIRC, Mgr. Schuler of blessed memory relied heavily on the 'dual function' of the choir, which served as both the 'vox angeli and the vox populi, interchangeably.

    Thus the utilization of the choral Sanctus following "Whom the Angels and Archangels, Cherubim also and Seraphim do praise: who cease not daily to cry out with one voice, saying:

    (all the voices of whom Mozart captured exquisitely in his 'Coronation Mass' Sanctus.)

    And the Chrysostom history given above would seem to bear out that interpretation fully.
  • Richard R.
    Posts: 774
    How exactly does stylistic variety imperil the theological integrity of the Eucharistic Prayer? Is the Roman Rite really that fragile? Or are we just too dense or uncouth to get the connections? One can argue *artistic* integrity, certainly (and the liturgical rites have their own particular artistic imperatives), but why pick on choral music? Do the alternating recitatives, arias, and choruses in Handel's Messiah render his Biblical passages stylistically disjointed or unintelligible? I would say, rather, they heighten and intensify the meaning of the text, not to mention the artistic experience. Why is that same sort of stylistic juxtaposition -- presidential chant and choral response -- inimical to the Eucharistic Prayer, as liturgical text and liturgical art?
  • No analogy is perfect, of course; but it seems to me that the opera/oratorio corresponds more closely to the Mass as a whole than to the Eucharistic Prayer, which is more akin to one of the "units" in the opera or oratorio.

    My experience has been that most worshippers regard the preface as one unit, the Sanctus as another, and the remainder of the Eucharistic Prayer as a third--in precisely the way that the collect, first lesson, and gradual are three discrete units. Frequently, in fact, they refer to the third unit, by itself, as "the canon" or "the consecration." I have previously explained why I think their misunderstanding constitutes a significant liturgical/pastoral problem

    Typography can help to mitigate this misunderstanding. It seems to me that the use of a single mode of utterance throughout the prayer can also do so. I certainly have a stronger sense of the unity of the Eucharistic Prayer when it is sung in its entirety to anaphoral chant than if it is rendered in three different styles (chant, polyphony, speech without note).

    Others, obviously, feel otherwise. This should not be surprising.
  • My comments on this subject (and others) seem to have aroused the ire of Richard R., who wrote:

    "Please continue to voice your preference, and vigorously defend it. But please refrain from moral and ritual absolutes that disparage the reality of lived (and living) Catholic tradition and its adherents."

    I find his reference to "moral absolutes" enigmatic, to say the least.

    Does criticism of the "Extraordinary Form" of the Roman rite constitutes "disparaging the reality of lived (and living) Catholic tradition and its adherents"? If so, all the great thinkers of the pre-Conciliar liturgical movement were guilty of the same offense. The rite was reformed because these thinkers convinced the bishops that it needed to be reformed.

    Nowadays many people--for good reason--have become dissatisfied with the modern rite. Its eventual improvement will depend upon the rational criticism offered by those who perceive a need to change it.

    Are my comments offensive to Richard R because I am not a Roman Catholic? Do critical remarks that would be acceptable if they came from a family member become offensive when they are proffered by an "outsider"?
  • I, for one, admittedly naive and under-educated in extremis, would very much like the thread to continue by all parties.
    I hope that it can avoid the pedantic and polemic aspects that often attend debates, which can and do cloud my ability to comprehend points being advanced.