Well, this only makes sense. I would think that most people who would prefer the Mass in Latin also prefer the EF. The time and effort by priests to schedule an EF Mass likely precludes them from also scheduling an OF in Latin. How I wish, though, that there was a rule that Holy Thursday had to be in Latin to stop the bi-lingual nonsense.

I agree with the prediction.

The taxonomy I sketched in jest in the heady nights after Summorum Pontificum was promulgated, might have some use after all …

1. Vernacular Novus Ordo = Ordinary Form of the Ordinary Form (OFOF)
2. Latin Novus Ordo = Extraordinary Form of the Ordinary Form (EFOF)
(Soon to be “Extinct Form of the Ordinary Form”)

3. 1962 Mass = Ordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (OFEF)
4. Pre-1955 Mass = Extraordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (EFEF)

Hugh you forgot the AFOF, the Anglican Form of the Ordinary Form, which will be available in more and more parishes over the next few years if TAC's petition is handled with due haste.

This has been in the cards for a while but I'm glad to see the statistics. Another factor is that a schola can't revive the Latin OF on its own.The attempt taken too far only drives a wedge between music and the rest of the Mass.

I worried after Summorum that the OF would end up as the vernacular Mass and the EF would be the Latin Mass. I'm unhappy about this result.

im with randolph
i think this stastistic is misleading. a better indicator is how many no parishes now have some latin and to what degree.
as a wise poster hear is fond of saying...brick by brick.
the motu proprio is a tool not the solution. its how well we utilize the tools that matters...

I have thought for some years that the scarcity of Gregorian chant in many parishes is not because of the music, but because much of it has never been translated into English. I also suspect that average Catholics don't have the love for Latin that many on this forum possess.

I think there's something in that, Charles. I'd extend it, too, with the observation that their lack of love for Latin is rooted in the perception that a "Latin Mass" is one according to the old form, which they have been taught to believe is something the Church has put behind Her, even something wrong. One possible way to mitigate this is to ensure the dialogues are chanted in English, and to sing the respnsorial psalm and Missal propers to a psalm-tone, also in English. This will give them experience of hearing and singing simple chant, and makes more of a connection with their experience than the more complex alternatives. If it takes, then in time Latin can be introduced gradually.

My only experience of a Latin NO Mass was here at Franciscan. They had the same sappy sacro-pop music in English at it, no propers, and in fact everything was the exact same as their English Masses, save for the priest speaking the prayers in Latin, and the congregation responding with "et cum spiritu tuo" and "Deo gratias" (and flubbing other lines such as "habemus ad Dominum" and "dignum et iustum est"). The readings were totally in English (not both, as I see at the EF sometimes) and of course the homily as well.

Why should anyone care for the Latin Novus Ordo if it's exactly the same as the vernacular, except they can't understand the priest's prayers? I mean, at this Mass even certain parts of the ordinary were sung in English. No translations were provided for the priest's prayers that were proper to the day.

I think the problem with the Latin Novus Ordo is the exact same problem with the vernacular Novus Ordo, compounded with a layer of unintelligibility.

I tend to hear the argument that Latin chants can not be translated into English. I think the Anglicans disproved that centuries ago

Had lunch the other day with a Graybeard RC liturgist. (No more identifying will be done...)

He relates that in the early 1960's, RC liturgists/musicians in the USA knew that the most viable English for a 'vernacular' Mass was the Anglicans' translation.

And they really wanted to bring it to RC Masses (with a few changes here and there for orthodoxy if necessary.) That proposal didn't get too far.

It should be remembered that, in the 1960s, Anglicanism was still very much associated as The Oppressor's Denomination in the eyes of the dominant subgroups of English-speaking Catholics, so the idea that Rome's English-speaking bishops would suddenly embrace Cranmer was a long shot in that era. History has consequences.

Gregorian chant in English? Of course. But remember, the texts came from the King James bible, the Book of Common Prayer, and, I believe, the Coverdale psalter. Not just any translation will do. A silly translation clashes with a sober chant.

I appreciated Hugh's taxonomy, and would add:

Average suburban parish Sunday Mass with awkwardly played music and goofy talk from the priest:
the ordinary Ordinary Form, or "OOF".

:-)

saw this coming the day i heard about a latin NO

Jackson, as long as parishes replace the Propers of the Mass with hymns, there will be antipathy towards them. I have no great problem with hymns at Mass. There are very good places for them so long as the Propers are sung first. How I would have loved to be able to rely on the Offertory proper during Ordinary time and not dig for a hymn that would work. Anyway, people in a movement need catch phrases, and this is on that has emerged. Perhaps once we reclaim the Propers, there will be fewer jabs at hymns.

I am curious as to what resistance you who are music directors have run into when introducing propers, English or otherwise, into the OF. Doing a 4-part (SATB) communion antiphon set to the proper of the day doesn't seem too different from a congregation's standpoint compared to using, say, "Taste and See," which has an easy refrain but difficult verses.

Is introducing propers difficult because there isn't enough good or palatable music for the congregation?

PS. Sorry for the aside in topic, but this seems at least loosely related to where this conversation has traveled.

Doug,

None yet, though we do simple chant propers and Latin Ordinary, not 4-part. Mind you, the alternative at that particular mass would be no music at all, so it's not as if we have competition.

At another place where I occasionaly sing, there's a settled NO tradition at one Sunday morning Mass of polyphonic and gregorian Latin ordinary, and Latin Roman Canon. The church is usually packed. Whenever I sing there I have lingering doubts about moving away from the city!

Doug, I haven't had any problems with propers. My congregation(s) sing the opening and closing hymns and the mass ordinary. They won't sing anything else, so the communion proper and the hymn that follows ends up being a choir or cantor piece.

IanW, I am not sure there's a clear-cut difference between the language and music required. There is a clear-cut difference between the language and music as practiced in most of the U.S. My goal is to improve the OF, and I think that's a work in progress. I suspect most here are doing the same. Keep in mind, however, that I have no desire to slavishly imitate the EF mass. That is offered every Sunday at my parish for those who want it.

However, I have sensed for some time a current here of those who really have never forgiven the Church for Vatican II or the NO. For those, maybe the EF is where they need to be and the rite that would make them most happy. I disagree, as I have stated before, that the EF and the OF are two sides of the same coin. Ideally, they could be. Practically, they are not at this time. It has seemed to me - and I am old enough to remember the Council - that the NO is not what the Council ever had in mind. The NO is something promulated by Paul VI several years after the Council ended. I don't think you can blame the Council for it. I thought the 1965 English/Latin missal was pretty good, and was much closer to what the Council actually had in mind.

Sorry I misunderstood what you were saying, Charles.

I should clarify what the four-hymn-sandwich properly refers to, as it's a term I've been using since the advent of Catholic liturgical discussion boards back in the 1990s; I can't claim ownership per se, but it's a term I did help to popularize in that context.

It refers to the situation where the hymns are simply inserted into what is otherwise pretty much a recited Mass (maybe with a sung responsorial psalm and Alleluia); that is where the bulk of the ordinary is recited, and where there little or no presidential singing. In other words, where the hymns ARE the music for all intents and purposes. So they become the juicy insertions in an otherwise "dry" Mass.

It's a different situation where the hymns are part of a much larger tapestry of music.

Again, this issue (hymns vs propers) would have less salience if much more of the Mass were in practice sung much more of the time. That was the real purpose of the invention of the phrase. I wish people would devote far less time to the hymns vs propers issue and spend much more time on the psalter and service music where much more work remains to be done. The fact that the hymns vs propers issue remains such a hot button is a vivid sign that, for musicians and congregations, those choices remain the juiciest bits to think about, and the psalter and service music remains a boring afterthought. Until that dynamic is subordinated, all talk of reform of the reform in the musical dimension of liturgy is a big old waste of time.

However, I do rewrite the text on the AUG... the language gets a bit... ridiculous at times.

Thee, Thi, Tho, Thum; I smell the talk of the English mun!

cgz - again, your observations have substance. I certainly did not by my comments intend to nail you personally. I just do, though, find this tag a rather silly and really thoughtless expression on the part of people who should have a considerably above average intellectual grasp of what genuine hymnody is and its potentially beneficent use at mass. It doesn't seem to me that hymns are going to go away any time soon. Their use Is licit. It therefore behooves us to make them 'proper' through a wise choice of hymns appropriate to a given day. Speaking of them in such cheap language by intelligent church musicians is neither helpful nor wisdomly. I use the propers (both Bruce Ford's English, and Latin at Latin masses) at St Basil's, but not at all the masses we do. They are appreciated and well received when we do them, but would not be accepted every week. The people there sing the ordinary (sometimes one of Fr Columba's adaptions and sometimes other settings), but love to sing properly chosen hymnody and sing it very well. (It goes without saying that we here mean by a hymn, say, Lauda Anima or St Denio, and Not the song about eagle's wings.) At Walsingham we do hymns And propers every week at the entrance and dismissal - at the offertory and communion we do the propers and an anthem. This is, I'm sure, universal in the Anglican Use. Ideally, though, for the Roman rite, I agree fully that the propers alone are truly the most fitting and appropriate first choice. But if hymnody is needful or desired, fine hymns well played and sung are certainly a good thing. And, a mass with propers and a mass with properly chosen hymns each has its own respectable aesthesis; having both is, I think, a boon from the council. I invite sober commentary on this observation.

And, Francis - I protest! the language of the AUG isn't at times ridiculous. It is, though, archaic or not, sometimes fun. We love it! You just have to know when to put tongue in cheek. (But, there is no harm in modernising pronouns here and there so that it will blend in with the language of the NO.)

The order of congregation participation in singing is first Reponses, then Ordinaries and mabye some Propers, if possible (or just by choir or schola). Hymns are optional. I hear people from congregaions often complain that while they try to praticipate in singing so much, they cannot truly participate in praying. True, 'singing well is praying twice.' But how many hymns can you schedule for congregaition singing after the main structure of the Mass is sung, Responses, Ordinaries and Propers for the sung Mass that the Church desires. Most of parishes focus on 4 hymns, and whether they are beautiful and theologically sound or not, they are personal devotional hymns. Propers are Liturgical prayers assigned by the Church for that specific day of the Mass and specific parts of the Mass. I don't see why people's devotional prayers replace the Church's Propers in many local churches. Liturgy is different from prayer services for Catholics. If local parishes want to sing more hymns, they can start Vespers and other Offices, instead of stuffing so much into the Mass.

I remember propers as choir pieces and I don't recall the congregation ever singing them. My choir sings some of them at the one Sunday mass when they are present. They are cantor solos at the other three masses. I have the communion proper sung at all masses, and sometimes I do the other propers. Before Vatican II, I recall propers being sung only at the one high mass on Sunday. They were never sung at the low masses. I really suspect one thing that did the introits in was the fact that the congregation couldn't sing them. As for the offertory, it seems to me the rubrics are now a bit different from what I recall pre-Council.

I have managed to reduce the number of hymns to three - entrance, post-communion, and recessional. The recessional is irrelevant because the mass is over by then, anyway. However, lest you think the music was glorious in the parishes before Vatican II, it wasn't in most places. Mid 20th century, I recall late Romantic music, neo-romantic 20th century music, and chant sung well or badly, depending on what parish I was visiting.

Thanks to insights of Chrism and Chonak, we can expand our taxonomy of the Roman Rite:

1. Vernacular Novus Ordo = Ordinary Form of the Ordinary Form (OFOF)
2. Latin Novus Ordo = Extraordinary/Extinct Form of the Ordinary Form (EFOF)
3. 1962 Mass = Ordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (OFEF)
4. Pre-1955 Mass = Extraordinary Form of the Extraordinary Form (EFEF)
5. Anglican form of the Ordinary Form (AFOF)
6. (Guitars, goofy sermons, and/or clowns, puppets, vestments in colors of national soccer team, glass chalices, love-ins at Sign of Peace, etc) = The Ordinary Ordinary Form (OOF). (Or, perhaps, the Very Ordinary Form (VOF)?)

:-)

Ian... You don't care for my humor I suspect.

They are wonderful... But it goes over most of the pips heads. I want to KEEP doing the propers but if I did them all as they are, eventually they would suffer protest from many and the I would lose them altogether.

Same goes for too much Latin. Got to be careful to go slow.