Yeah, but we have got to make it the propers and the Latin ordinary as it was in Phoenix with Matthew Meloche and Bishop Olmsted.
and to my great surprise--You Satisfy the Hungry Heart!
there's the discouraging of drums and the like in TLS...
19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.
Really? I'm not aware of any church documents discouraging the use of a festive Gospel Acclamation when appropriate.
People tend to be defensive when attacked.
But it wasn’t an attack, not a personal one at any rate.
OK, just for an excersize . . .
NB I do not want to provoke a discussion on the merits/demerits of the NO.
There is a particular problem with the ancient propers and the 'chants between the readings' in the NO. Traditionally these were reflective pieces, meditations almost, on the readings, but now the 'Alleluia' has become the 'Gospel Acclamation', a totally different conception; the only element of the liturgy which must be sung - It is suggested in the Introduction to the Lectionary that it should always be sung, and if it cannot be sung it should be omitted. That is a major reason for the ubiquity of the mode 6 triple alleluia, anybody and everybody can sing it.
That means that instructions on music prior to the NO no longer apply in every detail.
(4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year
It seems to me that the current Entrance Antiphons and Communion Antiphons in the Roman Missal, and the antiphons in the Graduale Romanum (where they differ) rarely match the readings in the Novus Ordo Mass, at least for most Sundays in Ordinary Time.
Paradoxically, many of antiphons currently in the NO would fail this criterion for how their text relates to the rest of that day's liturgy.
So it seems to me that the texts of the Vatican II documents and the GIRM anticipate composers writing new songs that will have texts that correspond to the Novus Ordo.
What it comes down to is whether we want to submit ourselves to the texts that have been handed down to us and trust Holy Mother Church (option 1) or supplant said texts with something we subjectively as individuals believe to be superior (option 4). I know which one I feel most confident doing...
submit ourselves to the texts that have been handed down to us and trust Holy Mother Church (option 1)
I am not aware of any guidance from the church in any document that this is a *ranked* list of priorities.
I would trust the most "trivial" choices of text for a given Sunday, passed down through the centuries, over my own subjective choice 100% of the time.
The GIRM is quite plain that option one is to sing from the GR. This would very self-evidently include ordinary time.
That does not mean selecting from among the options is a matter of indifference.
Does anyone believe it is a mere matter of indifference whether Eucharistic Prayer 1 is chosen over EP 2?
Does anyone believe it is a mere matter of indifference whether
Paradoxically, many of antiphons currently in the NO would fail this criterion for how their text relates to the rest of that day's liturgy.
There is a tendency to harmonize the readings, prayers and chants and look for themes that match them all, but it doesn’t work that way. Each proper has a value of its own; they are not attuned to each other, but they are instead suited for their respective place in the liturgy
I additionally find that impossible to square with the reality that in every country with the Roman rite, 99%+ parishes use option 4 most of the time
Each proper has a value of its own; they are not attuned to each other, but they are instead suited for their respective place in the liturgy.
To my best understanding, for most of the Sundays of Ordinary Time option 1 exists to allow the chants from the Graduale Romanum from before Vatican II to still be used despite the fact that they no longer match the rest of the liturgy.
Could this be why the Novus Ordo will never find a firm footing?
Don't confuse ubiquity with security. In my experience, the expressions of the novus ordo missæ are as varied as stars in the sky. It's more like a drunkard walking on the beach, than an athlete on a paved track.The current Roman Missal is the de facto standard all across the Roman Catholic world.
The instructions in the GIRM regarding music also need to be understood and applied in reference to the Church's other instructions and norms about liturgical music. For example, the Church has consistently taught that Gregorian chant is to be given the *first* place because it is specially suited to the Roman liturgy.
When that norm about Gregorian chant is applied to choosing from among the four options for music at the entrance in the GIRM, it seems evident that the GIRM's ordering is a ranking of preference or suitability for music at that moment. Yes, option four -- another suitable song -- may be exercised, but it is the least preferred and least suitable among the four options.
There is a ton of institutional momentum that has amassed in the wake of the post-conciliar abuses. No one of sane mind would honestly argue that "what we got" is "what they asked for". A very plain reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium euthanizes that canard immediately. Then you also have to remember this is the pre-internet era, so the only music you can do is that which you can get your hands on. When the large hymnal publishers pushed an alternate agenda, it became firmly ensconced. This is in no wise an endorsement of the practice, mind. Communion in the hand is normative now, but it began as abuse and was only permitted via indult to prevent schism, then it spread like a disease, and here we are. We also have to remember that there was an absolute implosion of vocations, and as a result, catholic education, in the wake of the council. (Make of that what you will.) This has caused 2-3 generations to be raised without proper education of latin or authentic liturgical praxis. At this point, most people have no idea that there's anything amiss, because they've only experienced a deformed version of Mass, broadly speaking.I additionally find that impossible to square with the reality that in every country with the Roman rite, 99%+ parishes use option 4 most of the time.
Bingo. How many churches do not have properly trained musicians or rely on volunteers? (most of them) Of the trained musicians, how many have extensive theological or liturgical training? (very few)[The state of affairs] is largely out of ignorance, in my experience, as opposed to knowing fully about all four options and choosing the last. Many, many, many (most?) parish musicians (let alone the clergy) in the U.S. have absolutely zero familiarity with the GIRM and the rubrics of the Mass.
SC was careful to specify that Latin & chant were to be preserved in the Roman rite. They are to be normative. The fact that alternate antiphons which can be spoken when no music is provided exists, in no way negates the usage of the former antiphons which are perfectly serviceable in the new rite. As alluded to earlier, the Gregorian Missal arranges them in official fashion for the new calendar, for instance.I'm only referring to what's been handed down since 1969.
I don’t intend to open Pandora’s box here, but: are we living in the same world? The current Roman Missal is the de facto standard all across the Roman Catholic world. Desire shouldn’t be confused with reality…
Communion in the hand is normative now, but it began as abuse and was only permitted via indult to prevent schism, then it spread like a disease, and here we are
I don’t intend to open Pandora’s box here
are we living in the same world?
The current Roman Missal is the de facto standard all across the Roman Catholic world.
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
