"All/Other Things Being Equal..."
  • Can anyone help me understand the meaning behind this phrase as used in in SC? This one line is often used to discount everything else the Church says about Sacred Music. Is there a good way to respond to people who raise this as a kind of "exception clause"? I understand that there's a legitimate diversity, and that the rest of SC 116 gives pride of place to Gregorian chant, but I am more interested in that particular line: "all/other things being equal"
  • MarkB
    Posts: 1,039
    I believe it means that under normal or expected circumstances, if everything is the way it should be, Gregorian chant is the predominant music you should hear at every Roman Catholic Mass in every Roman Catholic parish.

    It wasn't possible in 1963 for every Roman Catholic parish to sing Gregorian chant, so that expression meant in 1963 that Gregorian chant should be considered the norm for music at Mass without immediately mandating it for every Mass or parish in 1963.

    "All things being equal," if everything is as it should be, Gregorian chant is what you should hear at Mass, but all things were not equal -- everything was not as it should be -- in every parish in 1963, therefore some flexibility was allowed with the understanding that it would take time to implement the norm of Gregorian chant being given pride of place in liturgy.

    However, most parishes that weren't capable of singing Gregorian chant in 1963 made no effort to move in that direction; they made no attempt to implement the clearly stated norm of Gregorian chant for Mass.

    So here we are over 60 years later, and 99% of Roman Catholic parishes still sing almost no chant, and 80% of music directors either are ignorant about or willfully disregard the Church's teaching that chant should be given pride of place at Mass.

    The expression was used incorrectly and dishonestly as a loophole. It's not a loophole. It's stating that Gregorian chant should be the norm and is to be expected if parishes are celebrating Mass properly, in accord with Catholic liturgical tradition and liturgical norms.

    Replace "all things being equal" with "if everything is as it should be" and you'll get the correct meaning of the expression.

    I wish the expression had been translated as "if everything is as it should be." Then things might be a lot different today in parish liturgical music.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,068
    Relatedly, Dr. Mahrt says “first place” or something similar. “Pride of place” is misleading and opens up the door to pushing out chant.

    Also, I agree of course about the normative value of chant, but “ceteris paribus” is a fixed expression , and we shouldn’t manipulate its meaning.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    Yes ceteris paribus is a fixed expression, but not one much used in arts, and music is an art. Wikipedia offers
    A statement about a causal, empirical, or logical relation between two states of affairs is ceteris paribus if it is acknowledged that the statement, although usually accurate in expected conditions, can fail because of, or the relation can be abolished by, intervening factors.
    An example of applying it to liturgical music might be - that if a professional singer is hired for a funeral they should sing the Subvenite, In paradisum, etc. rather than Schubert's Ave Maria. But the intervening factors might include, at that time, some rubric forbidding it unless you had a High Mass.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,167
    In my view ceteris paribus is not really very meaningful here, because the judgement it modifies (“should have first place”) is not a variable, and so “when other things are equal” has no effect, really.

    Presumably though, it means that the use or non-use of Gregorian sacred singing is relative to a particular liturgical action. For the one same action, Gregorian should have first place. But the action can chosen first: so for example ceteris paribus means that Low Mass (with no sacred singing at all) can still be said, or a special occasion with classical polyphony can still be sung.

    Of course when SC was written, the Novus rite didn't exist. However, this might be applied also to the Novus’s responsorial psalm, which when chosen precludes Gregorian singing since it has no such tradition.

    A slightly more pressing question is what does “first place” mean? To be done whenever possible? To be done most of the time? Or to be considered essential, like the Latin syntax of the ritual text...?
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    "Is there a good way to respond to people who raise this as a kind of "exception clause"?"

    If by good you mean very likely to persuade the as-yet unpersuaded, then the answer is no.

    If by good you mean to make you feel better, then you may choose what delights you best.
    Thanked by 1ronkrisman
  • It wasn't possible in 1963 for every Roman Catholic parish to sing Gregorian chant

    But is this really true? Were there parishes who could not even muster the resources to sing psalm tone Propers (Rossini or otherwise) and a chant Mass (even if it was just the same one year round, even one of the simplest)?

    If the claim was that not all parishes were able to sing the full Propers every Sunday, I would be more likely to concede.

    But in order for a parish to sing "chant", all that is required is one semi-competent singer who is willing to put in the small amount of practice necessary each week to do the psalm tone propers and sing one of the chant Masses. (An impoverished situation to be sure, but that's besides the point)

    Chant is not in of itself more difficult than other forms of music. Whatever we are surrounded by does over time become most intuitive for us though, which is why the longer parishes avoid chant, the deeper of a trench they dig themselves into, and the more intrenched in their same music practices they become.

    I think the same attitude in 1963 of "It's not possible for us all to sing chant now, we will do what we're used to for now, and get to the chant later" has basically continued to this day, and is the reason most parishes still don't do chant. It is possible for every parish to do chant, they simply don't want to.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,068
    Well.

    I basically don’t advocate for simplifying propers at all, and in the two cases where we do, we do chant at the beginning and end, with psalm tones in between. If we did need to do so, I’m not sure how long I’d be able to tolerate it, and so I’d be very happy to spend extra time on chant so as to fluidly read notation and on choral technique if it meant getting to the full propers.

    I also realize that this isn’t the reality of most people, but it gets to one of my pet observations: of course a funeral or wedding or special Mass deserve the propers just like others. But it’s usually better to have several chanters (ceteris paribus…) than one, which is alas often the case for such Masses scheduled at the last minute or where money is involved (I say pay everyone to sing…)
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • I basically don’t advocate for simplifying propers at all, and in the two cases where we do, we do chant at the beginning and end, with psalm tones in between. If we did need to do so, I’m not sure how long I’d be able to tolerate it, and so I’d be very happy to spend extra time on chant so as to fluidly read notation and on choral technique if it meant getting to the full propers.

    I also realize that this isn’t the reality of most people, but it gets to one of my pet observations: of course a funeral or wedding or special Mass deserve the propers just like others. But it’s usually better to have several chanters (ceteris paribus…) than one, which is alas often the case for such Masses scheduled at the last minute or where money is involved (I say pay everyone to sing…)


    Same. I can't stand stand psalm tone propers either, and I would gladly practice an extra three or five hours each week to avoid them. But at least they disprove the notion that "we can't do chant". As much as I hate psalm tone propers, they are better than what most (NO) parishes have, and would be a step in the right direction.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    (I say pay everyone to sing…)
    LOL - I doubt anyone of any denomination in this, admittedly very small, country is paid regularly to sing in church. Most organists are unpaid volunteers, although there will be fees for funerals and weddings.
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,003
    Germanic countries may be inclined to pay for quality in music.

    Anglosphere countries whose Catholicism was largely grown on transported Irish stock - not so much. And that would be putting it mildly.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,777
    But is this really true? Were there parishes who could not even muster the resources to sing psalm tone Propers (Rossini or otherwise) and a chant Mass (even if it was just the same one year round, even one of the simplest)?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that it is purely a matter of will (and obedience). If you’re out in the absolute boonies and it’s a rural community with one half-trained volunteer who has no access to any resources, that’s one thing. But the vast majority of churches do have at least modest resources, and in any case, just about everyone has the internet these days where you can find more than a lifetime’s worth of free resources, including scores and tutorials. It really is a matter of willing it, at least in our times.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    SC 30. To promote active participation, the people should be encouraged to take part by means of acclamations, responses, psalmody, antiphons, and songs, as well as by actions, gestures, and bodily attitudes. And at the proper times all should observe a reverent silence.
    Rossini propers don't contribute to this other desideratum, while hymn sandwich was in 1963 an obvious way of promoting congregational participation.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,068
    I don’t necessarily advocate for paying everyone, but paying only one person or maybe two people to sing at weddings when you do the propers in whole or in part is bad, but that’s what happens when you don’t actually do the work to ensure that the propers have pride of place or whatever we wish to call it.

    I believe that Patrick Williams adopts this solution: you pay for people as necessary for the regular polyphonic choir during the period in which the choir sings, but anyone who sings for weddings and such gets paid too. $50 to $100 goes a long way at the end of the month.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • @a_f_hawkins
    Then we struggle with the question of to what extent "active participation" is desired, and to what extent "Gregorian Chant" is desired. It appears the music of Mass will always require some compromise from at least one of these two ideas. In the EF, more chant and less congregational participation seems the favored approach, while in the OF, more congregational participation and less chant. The Rossini propers are a poor man's chant, and get closer than a four hymn sandwich to the real chants of the Graduale.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,409
    I agree, I am not advocating hymn sandwich, I deplore it. I was just commenting on what motivated after 1963. What Bugnini wanted is best shown in the Graduale Simplex, simple Latin chant, but it did not become available until too late, too late particularly in the Anglosphere where Tres abhinc annos gave the chance for Sheehan of Baltimore (for example) to ban Latin. This was due to a deliberate campaign of obstruction which held up publication of GS for over a year.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 129
    In the extraordinary mass that I sing we can make the propers and the "hymn sandwich". A hymn (sometimes in vernacular) in the procession to altar then asperges, introitus, kyrie, gloria, etc. After the offertory antiphon another hymn (sometimes a latin motet in poliphony, sometimes vernacular hymn, sometimes a chant hymn), after the communio antiphon another hymn and in the end after the marian antiphon another hymn.
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 129
    article by Gilberto Sessantini translated using google translate:


    " The meaning of the expression “ceteris paribus”

    After having looked in a previous article [1] on the status of the “chant specific to the Roman liturgy” applied to the Gregorian chant by no. 116 of Sacrosanctum Concilium, we want to dedicate a few lines to the expression “ceteris paribus” ̶ normally translated as “in equality of conditions" ̶ present in the same number of the conciliar constitution and, for the most part, interpreted in a restrictive sense, that is, limiting the use of Gregorian chant. Firstly, let us fully review the text in question, because, as is obvious and opportunely, the first thing to do when talking about an item is to place it in its proper context:

    “Ecclesia cantum Gregorianum agnoscit ut liturgiae Romanae proprium: qui ideo in actionibus liturgicis, ceteris paribus, principem locum obtineat. Alia genera Musicae sacrae, praesertim vero polyphonia, in celebrandis divinis Officiis minime excluduntur, dummodo spiritui actionis liturgicae responder, ad normam art. 30.”

    The main statement, which thus underlies the entire number 116, is that the Church recognizes Gregorian chant as the proper chant of the Roman liturgy. Two practical consequences derive from this statement of principle. The first is that in celebrations the main place must be reserved for it. The second, however, is that other genres of sacred music should not be excluded in any way because of this primacy of Gregorian chant. We are faced with a clear principle and two practical consequences that follow from it and which are equally clear. What, then, is the meaning of an aside like that inserted in the first practical consequence derived from the basic principle stated previously?

    To understand it, we must first reconstruct the genesis of the aforementioned passage and, more generally, of the declarations of principle relating to Gregorian chant.

    Like many other statements in Sacrosanctum Concilium, the one in question is also indebted to the previous Magisterium
    , contrary to popular belief. With regard to the liturgy, sacred music in general and Gregorian chant in particular - in addition to the statements of principle present in documents from the first half of the 20th century, whose founder was Pius X's Motu proprio Inter sollicitudines [3] - , it is above all the very rich magisterium of Pius XII that provided the school, with a first Encyclical, the Mediador Dei of 1947, establishing all his thoughts on the liturgy; a second Encyclical, Musicae Sacrae Disciplina of 1955, entirely dedicated to sacred music [4]; and finally an Instructio de Musica Sacra et Sacra Liturgia, from the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 1958 [5], which can truly be considered as “the spiritual testament of Pius XII in liturgical matters” [6]. It is precisely in this last document that the expression “ceteris paribus” appears for the first time in magisterial documents:

    “Cantus gregorianus est cantus sacer, Ecclesiae romanae proprius et principalis; ideoque in omnibus actionibus liturgicis non solum adhiberi potest, sed, ceteris paribus, aliis Musicae sacrae generibus est praeferendus”

    The context in which this paragraph dedicated to Gregorian chant is inserted is “Chapter II: General norms”. Something had already been said about the Gregorian, but in a more general sense, in paragraph no. 5 of “Chapter I: General notions ”. The “General Norms” of the second chapter of the Instruction are concerned with outlining the execution of liturgical actions “in accordance with the liturgical books duly approved by the Apostolic See” [8], specifying that “the language of liturgical acts is Latin” [ 9] and that, therefore, “in sung Masses, only the Latin language should be used” [10], as well as in prayed Masses, with the exception of “some prayers or popular songs” [11] which can be done in the vernacular, and also “the Gospel and also the Epistle are read in the vernacular by some reader, for the benefit of the faithful” [12]. No. 16 continues with the exposition of the aforementioned principle from which the following consequences derive:

    “Therefore: a) The language of Gregorian chant, as a liturgical chant, is solely Latin. b) The parts of the liturgical acts that, according to the rubrics, are sung by the celebrant priest and his ministers, must be sung only in the Gregorian chant contained in typical editions (...). c) Where, by private Indults, it is permitted that in sung Masses the celebrant priest, the deacon or subdeacon or the reader, after the texts of the Epistle or Lesson and the Gospel have been sung in Gregorian, may proclaim the same texts also in the vernacular language, this must be done by reading it in a loud and distinct voice, excluding any Gregorian melody, authentic or imitated”.


    It is clear that the legislative context of IMSSL 16 concerns the explicit desire to reiterate the necessary rubrical fidelity in relation to the Latin language and its natural and exclusive liturgical musical overlay, which is precisely the Gregorian chant as found in the various liturgical books, from the Missal to the Gradual and so on. So much so that the following numbers indicate the modalities of a possible inclusion of “Sacred Polyphony” [14] (and it is here that the conditions to which we will return appear), of “modern Sacred Music” [15], the exclusion of “ popular religious song” [15], unless otherwise provided by Indulto [16], and the total exclusion of what is defined as “Religious Music” [17]. And this is based on the principle, reiterated later also at the end of the second chapter, that “[a]nything that, according to the liturgical books, must be sung (...) belongs entirely to the Sacred Liturgy”

    If this is the context for inserting the dictate of IMSSL 16, it is unequivocal that this number is the inspiration for the subsequent conciliar indication. But with a difference that is best not to overlook. In the case of the 1958 Instruction, in fact, the reference to other genres of sacred music to which Gregorian chant should be preferred is present in the same sentence. In SC 116, however, the section “ceteris paribus” is absolute, not immediately associated with the other genres for which it is intended to be a limiting condition. The meaning that the expression “ceteris paribus” assumes in the 1958 Instruction is, therefore, the following: Gregorian chant must, in any case, be preferred to other genres of sacred music, even when these correspond to all the characteristics required of a true liturgical singing. In fact, in this case "ceteris paribus" ̶ which literally translates as "along with the others" ̶ has more clearly the meaning of "put in comparison with the others (genders)", or even "things being like that" [ 18b] and "in parity of circumstances", and therefore the most effective and clear translation turns out to be this:

    “Gregorian chant is sacred chant [par excellence], proper and main to the Roman Church; therefore, in all liturgical actions not only can it be used, but, in all circumstances, it is to be preferred over other types of sacred music”.


    The section "ceteris paribus" is, therefore, a reinforcement of the use ("not only can it be used") and the preferential use ("as is to be preferred") of the Gregorian in comparison with other genres of sacred music, even when these overcome the admissibility barriers, in coherence with the entire implementation of IMSSL, which, deriving from previous regulations, aims to reintroduce Gregorian chant at all levels of celebration, including at a popular level with the participation of the faithful in the singing of the liturgy according to the different individuated degrees. It is in this document, in fact, that the so-called “degrees of participation” [19] are proposed for the first time, which we will later find in the 1967 Musicam Sacram Instruction [20].

  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 129
    In SC 116, however, the term of comparison disappears, since the “other genres of sacred music” are only mentioned in the following paragraph and “ceteris paribus” is therefore semantically and logically isolated. Furthermore, the official Italian translation inserts a nuance of legal connotation, at the moment in which “circumstances” become “conditions”, thus assimilating the phrase to contractual clauses with which equality is generally established under certain conditions. In doing so, it is the use of Gregorian that would be subject to conditions and not, vice versa, the use of other genres of sacred music, as clearly appeared in the 1958 document. The German translations of “ceteris paribus” as “ Voraussetzungen” (prerequisites) and Spanish “circumstancias” (circumstances) are closer to the original meaning, while the English “things” (things) and the French “choses” (things) remain more generic [21]. [21b]

    But is this really the interpretation to be given to the “ceteris paribus” section in SC 116, that is, a limitation to the preferential use of Gregorian chant? I do not believe. Firstly, precisely because of the origin of this expression, as demonstrated. Secondly, because the logic of the entire SC116 framework would be lost.
    What “conditions” are we talking about, then, and what do they refer to?
    We said that we are talking about “conditions” in the IMSSL. And these are the conditions for the admissibility of “Sacred Polyphony” and “modern Sacred Music” in the liturgy:

    “Sacred Polyphony can be used in all liturgical acts, under the condition that there is a schola that performs it in accordance with the rules of the art. This genre of Sacred Music is more suitable for liturgical acts whose celebration is more splendid.” (IMSSL 17)
    “Modern Sacred Music can also be admitted in all liturgical acts, if it truly corresponds to the dignity, gravity and sanctity of the Liturgy and there is a schola that can perform it according to the rules of the art.” (IMSSL 18)
    The conditions, therefore, would still be those identified by ecclesiastical regulations since Pius X: holiness, goodness of form and universality, beyond the technical-artistic possibilities of the interpreters. These determine the possibility or not of insertion into the liturgical-musical project of other repertoires besides Gregorian chant, which by its nature fully satisfies these conditions, also serving and even - precisely for this reason - as a model. [22]

    Texts written as a comment to the IMSSL do not enter into the argument, limiting themselves to quoting or paraphrasing the instructions of the Instruction. For example, Gelineau comments as follows: “in liturgical actions, [Gregorian chant] should be preferred – assuming parity of condition – to other genres of sacred music” [23]. Here the conditions become “condition”, but it is clear that it is not the Gregorian that is conditioned, but rather the other genres of sacred music, according to the thinking of the IMSSL.




    SC and MS commentators, however, interpret the “ceteris paribus” section of SC 116 in different ways, according to the inspiring ideology. The most official ones go towards expanding the criteria that SC sets for the admission of other genres of sacred music, as done, for example, by Bugnini, who, right after having stated that “the Gregorian continues to be the proper chant of the Church and, therefore, ceteris paribus (sic), to be preferred by native law", thus interprets and concludes: "note the section ceteris paribus, which establishes the balance between the various musical genres" [24], almost bypassing that other as much significance as “native right” that he himself attributed to Gregorian chant. In a restrictive sense of Gregorian chant, in turn, are the commentators who belong to the Universa Laus area, reading in the “required conditions” first of all the exclusively assembly purpose that the liturgical chant must have, a destination, according to them, difficult to apply to the Gregorian chant. and, for this very reason, decreeing the complete marginalization if not the complete ostracism of the "proper song" of the liturgy itself. On the other hand, commentators belonging to the Cecilian area do not enter into the topic, except to highlight the original ambiguity of the section, or to condemn the unilateral interpretation, or to depreciate the dangerous practical consequences of their unilateral interpretations. [25]


    We must not ignore, however, that a small complication also comes from the Musicam Sacram Instruction of 1967, which in nº 50 is expressed as follows: “In liturgical actions in song, celebrated in the Latin language, to Gregorian chant, as a song specific to the Roman liturgy , parity of conditions, the main post should be reserved.” The addition "celebrated in the Latin language" appears to subsequently restrict the scope of the conciliar ruling to celebrations only in the Latin language, bearing in mind that in Italy the CIS has, in fact, made celebrations in the Latin language impossible when in the presence of the faithful, contradicting with this limitation even what was established by the council itself [26]. However, even in this document, which in its original intentions should have responded to the questions and difficulties that have arisen in the meantime, and should have resolved practical doubts about the application of liturgical reform and sacred music [27], the section “parity of conditions” It is not adequately considered or explained, thus contributing to leaving the issue in a kind of linguistic and canonical limbo.

    From what we have said and demonstrated, it seems to me that we can conclude that in ecclesiastical legislation the expression “ceteris paribus”, far from being restrictive in relation to the Gregorian, highlights even more its pre-eminence and exemplarity. This is an item that, borrowed from a previous document, partially changed its meaning by changing context and, in doing so, offered the opportunity for different interpretations. However, under penalty of denying all previous teaching, the only possible interpretation is the original one, present in the Pacellian Instruction. And the selective conditions that the “ceteris paribus” section presupposes will be (re)found in those traditional ones (holiness, goodness of form, universality) that should be verified in each repertoire or musical genre that one wishes to include in the sung liturgy. On the other hand, this section must be read only in the constant Magisterium of the Church and not in the interpretation of individual individuals, whether musicologists or liturgists. The will of the Church is extremely clear and refers to the Gregorian, not only as its “own song”, but even more as a living prayer for a living liturgy and demands its presence not as historical or historicized heritage, nor as a piece of museum to show on private occasions, but as a song that guides the entire “doing” of the liturgy towards God, making its “being” emerge.
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,777
    Lincoln, we also use both propers and hymns, more/less as you suggest:
    Entrance hymn (one of Luke’s that is based on the Antiphon) and then the Introit is chanted once the priests reach the sanctuary, then we have a Kyrie and Gloria (which may or may not be Gregorian); at the Offertory we chant the Antiphon and a verse first, and fill the remaining time with a hymn. Communion is the same: Antiphon (English or Latin, depending) first, then choral motet if the choir is there, and finally a communion hymn. It turns out that the propers and hymns can coexist (which makes modern congregations much less resistant to chant when you don’t take away the hymns that they love). It’s not perfect, and ideally propers would be presented in their full, undiluted splendor, but this is still a good approach in the meantime.
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 571
    I can't stand stand psalm tone propers either, and I would gladly practice an extra three or five hours each week to avoid them


    As would I. However, the reality is that many (volunteer) choristers over whom many of us have charge do not feel this way. I'm lucky to get more than half of mine together for the weekly Wednesday evening rehearsal. But I digress...
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,955
    All other things are never equal.
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,169
    Things being equal or unequal reminds me of the following anecdote:
    A student challenged the professor who had said that a false statement implies anything. The student said, "Well, if one and one are one, can you show us how to prove it follows that you are the Pope?"
    The professor replied: "Surely, you grant that the Pope is one and that I am one. Therefore, if one and one are one, it follows (after substituting equals) that the Pope and I are one."
    Quod Erat Demonstrandum.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,777
    the reality is that many (volunteer) choristers

    The old "for pastoral reasons" case :-P

    I've already expressed my own feelings about Psalmtone Propers.
    Thanked by 1tomjaw
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,167
    Google has made a right dog’s breakfast of Sessantini’s paper, but it seems that S is saying, in the places it matters, that “ceteris paribus” must mean “even when those other (ceteris) kinds of music meet the same (paribus) general conditions”. (Presumably if there are kinds of music that don't, those kinds are out of consideration altogether.)

    Well, I think that meaning of par is hard to reconcile with, say, Lewis and Short, or indeed the places Google kindly found for me in St Thomas, where clearly it means that other variables are to be ignored (held constant, be the same) in order for a relation between cause and effect or condition and consequence to be clear.

    I am not convinced yet. Is there any other use of this term, perhaps elsewhere in Pacelli, that supports Sessantini’s take?
  • Lincoln_Hein
    Posts: 129
    The wiktionary has this about the usage of "ceteris paribus": "Used when comparing something to something else that is different in some way but required to be the same in all other ways for the comparison to work".

    the text of Pacelli cited by him: “Cantus gregorianus est cantus sacer, Ecclesiae romanae proprius et principalis; ideoque in omnibus actionibus liturgicis non solum adhiberi potest, sed, ceteris paribus, aliis Musicae sacrae generibus est praeferendus”
    can be traslated as:

    "Gregorian chant is sacred music, proper and principal to the Roman Church; therefore, it can be used in all liturgical actions, and, "all things being equal" (ceteris paribus), it is to be preferred over other types of sacred music."

    It is not this idea: "even when those other (ceteris) kinds of music meet the same (paribus) general conditions” because "ceteris" is not in Sessantini refering to "those other kinds of music" but is a part of an idiomatic expression that translates as "all things being equal" or "in parity of circumstances".

    The idea of Sessantini is:
    "even when other types of music have "the same liturgical and musical qualities apropriated for liturgy" ("the things that are equal"), gregorian chant is to be preferred.

    the "all things being equal" is "all things of this context, that is, musical qualities suited for liturgy, being equal"

    In the context of the document of Pacelli it's clear that the "all things that are equal" are not the capacity of the choir, for example, or the pastoral needs, or if it is raining when the music is to be performed. The general circumstances in terms of pastoral needs or capacity of choir are almost never equal in all churches.




  • Ralph BednarzRalph Bednarz
    Posts: 491
    Ceteris Paribus is merely and assumption, not even a hypothetical. It indicates the influence of variables and tries to isolate one of them. It will help develop observations for a general direction which is what SC does. "Mutatis Mutandis" (allowing other things to change accordingly) is up to us or the GIRM. Though Chant is mentioned as having the "First Place" is very important: but the use of "ceteris paribus" acknowledges that there are variables, exceptions and its "first place" is not absolute nor semper primus.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    Bwhahahahahahaha…

    Like pope Francis said…

    “Art. 1. The liturgical books promulgated by Saint Paul VI and Saint John Paul II, in conformity with the decrees of Vatican Council II, are the unique expression of the lex orandi of the Roman Rite.”

    …at least we have a pope who no longer pretends they are compatible… they are two completely different liturgies with their own set of rubrics. Latin really doesn’t belong in the Novus Ordo. Almost every time I present Latin to the Novus Ordo congregation They are very quick to take me out for a scourging.
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,777
    Latin really doesn’t belong in the Novus Ordo. Almost every time I present Latin to the Novus Ordo congregation They are very quick to take me out for a scourging.
    Just because the mobs revolt, doesn’t mean they are right to do so. You and I both know that the Novus Ordo Missæ was originally promulgated in Latin, and that SC and other documents such as Jubílate Deo specify that Latin is to be retained and used in the new rite. The fact that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater doesn’t’ change this fact. It’s a crisis of catechesis and will. Mercifully, not every congregation is hostile toward Latin. I have been lucky to experience such places (thanks be to God).
  • DavidOLGCDavidOLGC
    Posts: 80
    Our NO congregation is quite content with Latin and even know how to sing the "Sanctus" and "Agnus Dei" in Latin as per Jubilate Deo.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,068
    This is where I reiterate that Jubilate Deo was a mistake because it defined the bare minimum repertoire.
  • DavidOLGCDavidOLGC
    Posts: 80
    Matthew, I ask respectfully, then why is this "bare minimum" of Latin not followed my many if not most NO parishes?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 2,068
    Because they know that the bare minimum can be touched once in a while and otherwise ignored. Or you get Mass XVIII plus the Gloria of VIII and maybe Credo III (maybe!) and some non-Mass chants. If the church said instead “no, you have to put in a real effort to do the full propers and the ordinary”, well, then that would be different, but it is frustrating when parishes get stuck and never have a plan to do the propers. To do the Ordinary following a schema closer to that of the Graduale. The material in Jubilate Deo is the bare minimum expected by the church, apparently, but it isn’t enough, and Rome certainly doesn’t care to do more. So why bother if that’s the case?

    Or you get weird things like the priests holding on to the Salve, the simple tone, because it’s sung at funerals of priests in this country, and apparently don’t like others singing too. Or something — I’ve only heard about it on the forum. But I believe it.
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    The fact that the baby was thrown out with the bathwater doesn’t’ change this fact.


    No, but getting the baby back is extremely difficult. And why should we spend our effort and energy to navigate the shark infested waters when there are those who are thrilled to be devoted to the VO?
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,777
    I’d be happy as a clam if the TLM was fully restored and the NO put away for good tomorrow. Happy. As. A. Clam.

    But that’s not our lived reality.

    I once asked a very traditional priest why he didn’t join one of the ecclesia dei orders. His reply to me cut me to the quick: “if people like you and I didn’t stay and fight, then there would be no one left, and the masses would be left to the wolves. It seemed better to me to labor in the vineyard where the labor was most desperately needed, and not where things were already well tended.”

    This remark has haunted me ever since, and is one of the things that has kept me in novus ordo land. I hope and pray that my ministry moves the needle at least a tiny bit, to help those who wouldn’t be helped otherwise. I’m not convinced that the right thing to do is to silo myself only with other people who already “get it”. I have witnessed people come around and fall in love with better things, but someone has to expose them first.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,707
    I’d be happy as a clam if the TLM was fully restored and the NO put away for good tomorrow.
    I have been hearing rumblings that it’s going in the opposite. No TLM once and for all. Not sure if this will impact the Ecclesia Dei orders or just the Diocesan efforts.

    As one who has been in the trenches with you even until today, the friendly fire has cost me both arms and legs and PTSD.

    With Crucifix in one hand and rosary in the other… (those were spiritual limbs... not actual body parts... lol)

    FK
    Thanked by 1DavidOLGC