GIRM 2011
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Here it is
    girm2011.pdf
    657K
  • Aristotle EsguerraAristotle Esguerra
    Posts: 1,186
    Looks to be the one for the Dioceses of the United States of America in particular.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    Even their website is updated:

    General Instruction Of The Roman Missal

    An example of great change, as described here:

    86. While the Priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Chant is begun, its purpose being to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices, to show gladness of heart, and to bring out more clearly the “communitarian” character of the procession to receive the Eucharist. The singing is prolonged for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful. However, if there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion Chant should be ended in a timely manner.
    ease.
    Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.

    87. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex of the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) some other suitable liturgical chant (cf. no. 86) approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,199
    I dearly hope someone with more time than I will look at the 2002 and 2011 side by side and make note of the changes.
  • AngelaRAngelaR
    Posts: 321
    Okay, this begs a question, of which I hope you will forgive my ignorance: how do we know what chants are approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop? What documents do I need to look at and where can I find them? And are all the chant resources listed on this site approved by our bishops (I ask this second question out of mere curiosity for my own music planning purposes).
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Here's a big shout out of GRATITUDE for those who consistently call for propers to be prayed.
    It seems to me that this shift, noted above, is the fruit of that labor.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    This GIRM is a big improvement. It is striking that with this document, nearly the whole parish musical conventions come into question. It is becoming ever more difficult to make a case for substituting propers with something else. It can still be done but not without some fancy explanation.
  • Adam WoodAdam Wood
    Posts: 6,482
    Please note option 1:
    as set to music there or in another musical setting

    does not require approval by your local Ordinary, the USCCB, or the Bishop of Portland, Oregon.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    its purpose being to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices


    How can this be read in support of Graduale propers, when for the most part the communion chants are too difficult for a congregation to sing? Certainly there are ways to involve the faithful in the singing of the propers (Laudate Dominum Communion Antiphons, maybe even the ad libitum chants from the GR, or their equivalents in the SEP), but does this line in the GIRM really support that?
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    "Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease."

    It also says 'singers.' It seems to separate singers from all other communicants for those who sing chants.

    I wonder how "spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices,"is said in the Latin original text?
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Excellent point, mia. Singing by the choir alone is also listed as the first option. Just two more examples of how these things seem to be written by committee and thus lack the thrust of a clear point of view. Of course one can argue that unity of hearts can be accomplished even when the choir alone is singing, but this document clearly says unity of voices.
    At least it doesn't say that for the other propers!
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    Mia:

    The Latin says, "spiritualem unionem communicantium per unitatem vocum exprimere": to express the spiritual union of the communicants through unity of voices.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    @Kevin in Kentucky

    I dearly hope someone with more time than I will look at the 2002 and 2011 side by side and make note of the changes.


    Jeffrey Tucker already has.

    right here
    http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/07/dramatic-changes-in-music-rubrics-for.html
  • kevinfkevinf
    Posts: 1,199
    Yes, I am aware of that Jeffrey. I would like someone to look at the whole document. Would there be differences in other sections of these two translations.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    right, I mean, I just quickly looked at the critical sections - long before anyone even knew there was a new GIRM. Something more in depth needs to be done.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Well, Jeffrey, you could, like, ask Todd real nice and pretty please.'-)
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Kevin, I am doing the whole document, side by side. It should be up on Pray Tell next week.
  • marajoymarajoy
    Posts: 783
    Paul--
    As I (and possibly others) are not regular readers of PT, ;-) would you be so kind as to update us on here when that is posted? Much thanks in advance! :-)
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Yes, of course.
  • amindthatsuits
    Posts: 860
    Yes, the new GIRM is interesting--and please add your comments to my attempt to synthesis it in a way useful to music directors--but I just listened to parts of one new Mass setting listed in another discussion, one that is being required by one bishop OVER the Missal Chants.

    My reaction was: Bill Gaither converted?

    Left me completely depressed, with pardon begged from any who have been blessed by the Bill Gaither Trio. I'm sure he's a nice guy, and so was the person who wrote this Mass, but it is like Donnie and Marie Osmond are still teenagers and leading a praise band.
  • Mike R
    Posts: 106
    Just to be clear: is this really a new GIRM, or just a new English translation of the same GIRM?
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    There is no new GIRM, Mike; but an almost new translation.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    It strikes me as profoundly wrong for a Bishop to effectively forbid parishes from using the music of the Missal and mandate proprietary published settings. I mean, I really don't know how that can happen.
  • countertenor
    Posts: 17
    In the Archdiocese of Portland in Oregon, we've been mandated to lean a specific OCP published mass setting, for use in "inter parish" liturgies. But once it's been learned we can use other settings.
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    It strikes me as profoundly wrong for a Bishop to effectively forbid parishes from using the music of the Missal and mandate proprietary published settings. I mean, I really don't know how that can happen.

    I'll bet one wouldn't have said that if the setting in the missal had been terrible, for instance if the conferences had paid the royalties to have Mass of Creation printed in the missal as a default. I suspect we would then be hearing about the noble right of the bishop to regulate the liturgy of his diocese, wouldn't we?
  • francis
    Posts: 10,848
    Personally, I don't think this will change any of the current practices.
  • ClemensRomanusClemensRomanus
    Posts: 1,023
    Agreed.
  • noel jones, aagonoel jones, aago
    Posts: 6,611
    It strikes me as profoundly wrong for a Bishop to effectively forbid parishes from using the music of the Missal and mandate proprietary published settings. I mean, I really don't know how that can happen.

    I suppose by saying that a proprietary published setting being the only only one permitted when a bishop is in attendance does just that.

    Benedict can insist that communicants kneel....bishops can do what they want.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Leave it to the nutty California geezer to point out, Jeffrey, that reality dictates that a bishop cannot effectively forbid parishes from using the ICEL MR3, Jubilate Deo, or any other licit Mass setting. I mean, really in the hopefully hallowed name of the late Bp. Untener, it's not like he can even bi-locate, send out chancery flying monkeys surveying each Mass in hundreds of parishes, or plant the Liturgy Stazi. And even if he were so impetuous and stubborn, what's he going to do with recalcitrant pastors, send them into the high desert all? Like these gentlemen haven't other items on their clipboards, like fiscal solvency and the like. And in matters liturgical, a bishop contradicting canon law by arbitrary dictum could find a letter from Ecclesia Dei in his inbox. As David Clayton Thomas used to sing, "What goes up, must come down, spinning wheel keeps turning round."
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Yes, but this is precisely what is happening in some dioceses. The way it works: we need one setting for the whole diocese for six months to a full year. It will be the following one put out by the following publisher. You must buy this setting and sing it every week from Advent to Advent. That way we have unity.

    As I understand that sort of rule, the Missal chants are out of the question for a time. And it is also the case that there are some Offices of Worship that are very, very interested in enforcement here, now as never before. As I've made queries about this, one person who knows pointed out an obvious fact to me: "there is a lot of money at stake in this transition."

    Yes, it's true that any parish/pastor etc. can go rogue with no other consequence that the usual acts of insubordination.
  • MaryAnn Carr WilsonMaryAnn Carr Wilson
    Posts: 1,738
    Another sad reality I hate to even type here is the fact that priests who would resist such a situation and go their own way-- even considering they are technically free to do so-- risk being ostracized by other priests, chancery blowbacks, etc. It's a nasty reality, but faithful priests have a lot of political ramifications to weigh in basic actions like these.

    It's a very unhealthy situation that needs a lot of prayer- and people calling out such behavior and documenting it.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Yes, MaryAnn, that is precisely it. Now, to be sure, this kind of temporary legislation (that restricts the use of the Missal chants) is untenable over the long term. A serious challenge to it would be pointless because the rule will be gone before it is deemed contrary to canon law. But you see what is happening here. The idea is to 1) forced parishes to cough up money to favored institutions, and 2) give proprietary published settings a musical boost over the free and normative material. In short, it is a racket, one cooked up in select places and with a firm purpose. Is it worth it for any pastor to actually stand up against this kind of thing, given how much else he must deal with in his ministry? Probably not.

    In any case, you know, a musical movement that has to rely on force, manipulation, connections to power, rhetorical tricks, and clever plots is not long for this world. Music that lasts is that which grows organically from within its native home and it lasts because it penetrates the human heart.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    In any case, you know, a musical movement that has to rely on force, manipulation, connections to power, rhetorical tricks, and clever plots is not long for this world. Music that lasts is that which grows organically from within its native home and it lasts because it penetrates the human heart.

    Absolutely, and well said, JT. However I maintain that it is not the pastor's sole responsibility to stand firm and resist a "force" that may just be as illusory as the importance we attach to our cloistered conversations here in St. Blogs. A wise pastor, or even a managerial pastor will (or ought to) "let go, let God" and allow his trusted DM/musician to discern the healthiest directions for a parish music practice, and then abet those efforts simply by accepting his clearly articulated role as a singer in the liturgy, namely the cantillation of all celebrational orations. To some extent, that mitigates (see Mahrt, Wm. "Paradigm") the nature of a Roman Catholic ethos no matter what style of ordinary or propers or song are otherwise employed.
    I wish I had the time to opine futher about this at Cafe, but it's raining cats, dogs, flying squirrels and a not a few attacking sheep out here. I must delicately say that your statement about publisher "force" I've encountered in a very new, unexpected and unpleasant way quite recently. But it would be impolitic at this time to comment about the encounter. But, the bright side is that it galvanizes further that the cause of CMAA is right and just in my heart, and our path is lit by freedom, not force.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Well, you said it. I too have been absolutely shocked by what I've seen and discovered recently in this regard. I'm maintaining a distance to it, however, choosing rather to just be quiet about it all, letting it pass and waiting for better days. My post on the transition, which received very little attention, just scratches the surface but every word was carefully chosen here. There are many things I could have said but did not, and I'll continue this way. I'm confident about the long term. As you said: freedom not force.
  • fp
    Posts: 63
    Thanks to all of you for your statements! This is indeed a very troubling situation!
    Please keep the small parishes in your prayers.... with very little education in sacred music and liturgy lots of them are not welcoming any change at all and are (again) missing this great opportunity to embrace the fulness of the Liturgy! Like many parishes around us (except for Charles') we will only learn and use one setting (the one the Bishop wants to hear when he comes.... once a year....). Introducing the chant setting "would be way too much for the poor musicians and would be confusing for the asembly". Free workshop, free teacher, free accompaniment, free music, free recordings have not been enough....!
    FP
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,986
    My parish congregation will learn any new mass setting in 2 or 3 weeks, at most. My pastor told me that the small parishes are having great difficulty with the changes to the missal. We actually went through a mandated setting for when the bishop visits about 10-15 years ago. Then it was the Mass of Creation. I maintain that any congregation that can learn MOC can also learn something better.
  • Jeffrey CogginsJeffrey Coggins
    Posts: 360
    I'm looking for a pdf of the 2011 GIRM which includes a table of contents, forward, and index.

    The table of contents here show that there is something with actual page numbers, but it doesn't line up with the site's pages (at the bottom - there's 12 pages), and it doesn't line up with the above attachment. It's probably for the pages in a printed Roman Missal.

    Does one exist?
Add a Comment