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.

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...?

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.

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.

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.

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.

@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.

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.

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.

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...

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.

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?

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.

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).

This is where I reiterate that Jubilate Deo was a mistake because it defined the bare minimum repertoire.

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.

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.