Quick advice needed
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    First premise: I know that VENI SANCTE SPIRITUS is the appointed Pentecost Sequence.
    That said, is it totally out of bounds to substitute VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS in its place. Simple answers need only apply.
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Well, thinking back to a time when singing the proper Sequence was not possible in our own situation, I can imagine having done this. In fact, here is a test I often use when these questions come up. Let's say I'm traveling somewhere and I just need to get to some Mass of some sort and I pop into a parish I've never been to, of course expecting disaster as usual. The choir sings Veni Creator at the Sequence. Am I happy or not? The answer is that I would be thrilled! This is not the only standard (of course) but thinking this way does help frame up the current context in Catholic liturgy. So it all depends on the starting point and where one is in the process of achieving ideals.
  • Lois
    Posts: 1
    I may be wrong, but my understanding is that the Sequence is a prescribed text, just like the psalm or Gospel. It's not just an appropriate hymn to be sung at that spot in the Mass, but rather sort of an extended Gospel verse / Alleluia text. Since Veni Sancte Spiritus is the prescribed Sequence for Pentecost, I'd be very reluctant to substitute any other text for it.

    If it's the melody that's difficult, I've seen the text (Latin or English) set to O Filii, and there is an even simpler English setting in the old St. Basil Hymnal that's really quite nice in a pinch.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    While we're on the topic here...

    Is there a readily-available PDF of Veni Sancte Spiritus anywhere -- in chant notation?
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Lois, point already taken in the original post.
    Here's the deal in a nutshell:
    My schola can sing the "Sancte" eyes closed
    My congregation cannot sing it, period, even as printed modern notation in OCP.
    Other option is the hymnic text set to Beethoven in English.
    Congregation can and does sing "Creator" well at Vigils, confirmation, etc.
    Pastor likes the idea, ala Jeffrey's point. But he doesn't want the prescribed text sung in Latin by the schola only; that's his beef and province and I still like my job after 15 years here.
    So, I'm just troubling the waters for some sympathy before I make the call.
    C
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Surely. how about this
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    oh so it is a participation question. That seems just wrong to me. I mean, there is nothing that somehow requires that people sing this. I think you should just stick to your guns and say: this and no other is the prescribed text. We can't change the Mass, period. But I guess in that case he will want Beethoven in English.

    The choices that the real world gives us! Makes it rather difficult.
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    I would say not.
    If the correct words, (either in Latin or in a vernacular,) cannot be sung, they ought to be spoken.
    Much as we love VCS, substituting it, merely for the sake of singing a chant, would be no more appropriate that singing some other song or hymn addressed to the Holy Spirit, say, Fire of God Undying Flame, or Come Down O Love Divine to DOWN AMPNEY.
    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    Thanks, Jeffrey. I can't believe I missed that on the Cecilia Schola page... that's always the first place I look.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Veni Creator should not be sung in its place, as it is a different text than that appointed. I don't mind the use of a paraphrase of the Sequence, as I have done often ("Christ the Lord is risen today, Christians haste your vows to pay" at Easter) but "Veni Creator" is an actual different hymn and not at all close enough to fit the bill. Many hymnals and resources from the big publishers have second-rate paraphrases you can use if necessary.
  • Mark M.Mark M.
    Posts: 632
    Another question on this here:

    My parish's OCP missalettes indicate that there are different readings for the Vigil of Pentecost, with no Sequence indicated. Now, I sing at our Saturday 5pm Mass, which we normally designate as the "Anticipated" Mass. So, ought we be reading the Sunday readings, with the Sequence? Or not, and do the Vigil?
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Mark

    There should be no anticipated Mass for Pentecost. It has a proper Vigil. Treat it like Easter. You don't do an anticipated Easter Sunday Mass on Saturday evening, do you? Use the Vigil liturgy Saturday and don't put a sequence in there. It only belongs on Sunday.

    Mike
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    Would the chant in MN be helpful?
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Thank you all. Beethoven it is.
    Yes, Jeffrey, that bad. And I've just wolfed down dinner after an excruciating staff meeting, and before schola rehearsal, while employed by a guy who just can't see passed his "preferences." You have no idea what duplicity I have to dance around.
    I'm going to suggest doing Masses with large puppet effigies of our Lord, His Disciples, our BVM and the Four Evangelists. I mean, why not? (Go to Amy Wellborn if you haven't seen the video of a CTA Mass in San Jose, do you know the way?) Beats the daylights out of Halloween Mass in Orange.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,810
    Well, I don't know if it is helpful to anyone, but this is what I can put together in an hour or so if you ever need GC in MN. If anyone wants to use it, I will finish it out. This one is transcribed from the Graduale 1961 (digital version from our own website.)
    veniSancteSpiritus.pdf
    104K
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    Mark M. you missed it because I just now put it up!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    I'm really glad to hear this story. We all face incredible constraints: singers, pastors, hymnals, complaining parishioners, and it never stops. I'm quite convinced that the training of Church musicians must include the spiritual discipline to navigate all these problems with some sense of a willingness to suffer and offer it up. Maybe it is the way we all learn humility. I'm still learning but I long ago tired of the lessons.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    My understanding also is that the Veni Sancte Spiritus, in Latin or the official translation, is the only text for the sequence. If for some reason it cannot be sung in any way, shape, form or language, by a choir, schola, or even as a solo by the organist, then as a last resort it can be read by the Lector.

    As far as "active participation" is concerned, perhaps the parish powers-that-be who define this as everyone-sings-everything might be asked whether the congregation is non-participatory when they are not reciting aloud the readings and all the presidential prayers.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    The sequence is part of the Liturgy of the Word. If it can't be sung, it should be recited. The congregation is not expected to participate in singing it any more than they are expected to participate in reading the second reading. I would suggest doing whatever you can to avoid the perception that the people need to sing everything. Besides, if your congregation cannot sing the even numbered verses with support of the choir after hearing a soloist sing the identical tune (as they are expected to do every week for the responsorial psalm), there is not much hope for them singing anything at all. That being said, there is an arrangement by Richard Proulx (http://www.wlp.jspaluch.com/pdf/008744.pdf) based on the chant tune and with a refrain for congregation. I think it's a better alternative than using a hymn tune. One could make the transition to the chant in a few years.
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    "The congregation is not expected to participate in singing [the sequence]"

    Well, it all depends on who is doin' the expectin', doncha know....
    Clearly there are expectations by some, Charles's pastor, for instance, that the people will sing it.
    It would be good to have some authoritative citation, however old or obscure, that this is not the case.
    At my parish, the choir sings the sequences, (or a reasonable facsimile thereof -- a motet of the final verses of "Lauda Sion," for instance,) but at non-choir Masses there was a bit of a dust-up last year because the liturgist's expectation (order?) was that the celebrant would stand and lead the people in reciting it, and he handed to task off to one of the lay readers.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    I actually prefer that all sequences be sung by all, and Veni Sancte is quite easy. But I tried it last year, and it was silent. So if you have a protestant congregation, go for it, but Catholics won't do it. I HAVE had good luck with the Easter sequence, but perhaps that's because I use it for Low Sunday as well as Easter. So thaaaaank you Vatican II for destroying all of our octaves so that we can't do sequences more than once!

    Oh, and FWIW this year I'm having it sung by a choir in alternatim, men on odd verses, women on even, organum in 5ths for "Amen, Alleluia!" VERY effective.
  • maui_hudak
    Posts: 1
    I had the same question as Mark M- I noticed the lectionary/ missalettes did not print the sequence for the vigil, and that the GIRM says the sequence is sung "Pentecost Day." I was left unsure if the traditional choir (more like duet) that I lead for Sat night Mass was supposed to do the sequence.

    However, the ordo prescribes the sequence for the vigil!!

    Is there any official or reliable authority to clarify this?

    Also, does anyone have a file of the notation of the sequence set to O filii? It seems awkward when I try to set it to that melody, either in English or Latin; not sure what I am doing wrong.
    Does anyone have a file of the simple melody from the St Basil hymnal?

    Thanks from a suffering liturgist on an Indian reservation...
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    OK, G -- you got me on this one. I shouldn't have used the passive voice. But I think I could be justified in saying "According to the GIRM, the congregation is not expected, that is required, to sing the [insert Entrance, Kyrie, Gloria, Offertory, or Communion] in that it may be sung by the choir alone." Just as I can look at a piece of music and determine, in many cases, whether the composer intended piano or organ (or harp or guitar) I could have gone on to say that "if the composer of the sequence had expected it to be sung in its entirety by a congregation that was not musically literate or vocally skilled, they would have written it differently," or "if the compilers of the Vatican II liturgy and its official music books had intended the sequence to be sung in the same way by said congregation, they would have chosen something different."

    It's the (false) expectation that everyone sing the Entrance, for example, that has led to its almost universally being replaced by a non-liturgical hymn. Why encourage that same way of thinking about the sequence, a thing for which most PIP's do not yet have a well-formed concept? It might be better in this instance to assert what is the normative practice, without risk of upsetting expectations (like "why didn't we sing a 'closing hymn'?").

    So, with these thoughs in mind, I'd like to rephrase my original statement: "No one (that is, no official liturgical source) requires the external participation of the congregation in the sequence." The lectors and deacon exercise their distinct ministry during the readings, and the psalmist (or cantor) and choir for the chants between the readings. I might suggest, however, that when the choir does sing the sequence straight through without the congregation singing alternate verses, that the latter be encouraged to sing the final "Amen, alleluia."
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    Sorry, I wasn't playing gotcha, I'm sincerely curious, is there anything anywhere authoritative indicating ANY preference for who renders the Sequence?
    I share in your rejection of the notion that liturgical music has to be all-assembly-all-the-time, I'd just like to know what the actual documents say, if anything.
    I got my hopes up that you could tell me.
    The Liber Cantualis, which I think of as the congregation's music (okay, not MY congregation, but still...) has the Sequences, but frankly, other than the Stabat Mater, and that in English at that!, I've never heard the chanted Sequences sung by the people.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    maui_hudak

    The sequence is not part of the Pentecost Vigil liturgy. Not sure why your Ordo says this. The GIRM is correct in that the sequence is for Pentecost Day. There is nothing that says you can't use the sequence at the offertory if your tradition is to sing a hymn instead of the Offertory proper anyway, though. Not sure if there is anything more official than your diocesan ordo. The Solemnes Gregorian missal does not have it either.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    maui_hudak asked:
    I had the same question as Mark M- I noticed the lectionary/ missalettes did not print the sequence for the vigil, and that the GIRM says the sequence is sung "Pentecost Day." I was left unsure if the traditional choir (more like duet) that I lead for Sat night Mass was supposed to do the sequence.

    However, the ordo prescribes the sequence for the vigil!!


    The Ordo Lectionum Missae says there is no sequence at the Vigil Mass for Pentecost. Here are the scanned pages from the Ordo Lectionum Missae.
    no sequence at Pentecost Vigil.pdf
    259K
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    As to having the people sing the sequence, OCP’s “Ode to Joy” setting of the Pentecost sequence, IIRC, only repeats words and adds “O” here and there.

    Repeating text is an age-old practice, and while I’m about as strict as anyone regarding fidelity to texts in liturgical singing, I do think we can condone adding an “O”. Especially in the case of that goofy English translation, which they apparently thought in the 60s was too antiquated to have “O” and “thou”, so now we’ve messed up the accent patterns and rhymed “divine” with “yours”.
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    There are certainly similarities between the "Veni - " hymns, but the Sequence takes the precedence. I would rather hear it said - in meter, NOT PROSE - than something else sung. As a matter of fact, I'd rather here it thusly recited than set to another hymn tune. The Hymnal 1940 (and others) name this hymn tune as the Golder Sequence. It is both beautiful and easy. We're only a few days from Pentecost now - it's too late to fix this for this year, unless you have a couple of confident cantors willing to rehearse 20 minutes. Yes - thirty minutes - that's all it would take. Let the people sit back and listen this year - they can sing it next year.

    Other aids would be:
    1) Play the Charles Callahan version for prelude - it is a clear statement of the melodies.
    2) Plan to accompany the Sequence as you would any other hymn. The version in Hymns, Psalms & Spiritual Canticles is very good for this. (This may be part of the congregation's hesitance, if you're planning on it being performed a capella.)
    3) There is also a lenten hymn text in The Hymnal 1940 that works very well to this hymn tune. Even if you don't invite the congregation to sing along, at least they can hear it some weeks before they need to sing it with the original text. (If you need the lenten text with the organ accompaniment, or even melody line only for your singers, I can help you there.)
    Email me privately, and we'll work something out.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    I would hesitate to use anything other than the standard chant melody. Whether the parishioners participate interiorly or physically sing it, this melody, like those of other seasons of the Church year, as it returns year after year after year, gradually becomes a part of the parishioners' mental and spiritual furniture. Over 20-odd years of singing the Veni Sancte Spiritus, I can no longer hear it without a strong association with the golden light that bathes the Liturgy at the end of the Easter Season and the approach of high summer (here in the northern hemisphere anyways). When another melody is substituted, the Liturgy loses a little more richness.

    My parish is blessed with a Schola who will sing it at the principal Mass, and then - God bless them - have agreed to return and sing it again, as well as the Communio, for the later Mass. Several of them are returning to sing Vespers in the afternoon, on Mother's Day. So many good volunteers in the Church - we must never fail to be thankful for them.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Charles, you've received a lot of good advice. I certainly would use the Veni Sancte Spiritus to the standard chant melody, I would accompany it on the organ, I'd play it as a prelude, I'd invite the assembly to sing the even numbered verses, and I'd pray the rest of this week for a gift from the Holy Spirit to infuse your assembly with the courage to sing it.
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    Does anyone know why the Sequence as presented in the Gather Hymnal omits the "Amen, Alleluia"?

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    you simply wouldn't believe the version we saw laying around on the parish piano tonight, which can only assume is going to be sung somewhere by someone. wow. It is so far from the original that it bears no likeness at all.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Thank you, Paul and everyone. As I've clarified, the issue actually centers around the intrapersonal dynamics at play when "collaborating" with the pastor or other celebrant/priests. (I asked Prof. Mahrt et al about such "politics" at D.C. last year.) The only Proper that I "have" provenance over is the Communio, which we sing weekly. I tried selling the Introit for the schola Mass only; not the pastor's preference. Fealty to the pastor and/or to the documents, not to mention the faithful??? It is a connundrum. What's ironic is that he would welcome "Creator" while nixing "Sancte" in the chant version. Brick by brick, eh?
    How's things in Camarillo?
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    G asked:
    Does anyone know why the Sequence as presented in the Gather Hymnal omits the "Amen, Alleluia"?

    The Graduale Romanum omits these, too, as does the Order of Readings.

    ISTM they shouldn’t be there.

    Also, that metricized one in Gather probably couldn’t work the Amen/Alleluia in gracefully. (Read: Gauntlet thrown down!)
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    Oh, and if you're going to use OCP's English chant version, please please please sing "hearts of thine" so it rhymes with "divine"!
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Incantu,

    I believe we are bound to the official translations, even for the sequence, which in this case does indeed rhyme “divine” with “yours”.

    The solution, IMO, is not to make changes ourselves, but to work together to implement changes on a broad scale. Maybe there is a very good reason not to have the antiquated language in the sequence translation (never mind that we have it for the Our Father) that simply escapes those of us who prize the integrity of the rhyme scheme.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    "It is so far from the original that it bears no likeness at all."

    I seem to recall that in that strange puppet liturgy that was recently linked from NLM, they were singing the English text of Veni Sancte during the Preparation of the Gifts to a nondescript pop melody. Maybe it's the same one.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    There are no "official" singing translations of most of the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion antiphons from the Gradual. I do not know of an "official" English singing version of the Sequence, either. Is there one? There is a version in the Lectionary, yes, but the Lectionary is not a music book. And, like the responsorial psalm, I believe the Sequence need only be taken from an approved collection. Better singing versions do exist. Please correct me if I am mistaken.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    incantu wrote:
    There are no "official" singing translations of most of the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion antiphons from the Gradual. I do not know of an "official" English singing version of the Sequence, either. Is there one? There is a version in the Lectionary, yes, but the Lectionary is not a music book. And, like the responsorial psalm, I believe the Sequence need only be taken from an approved collection. Better singing versions do exist. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

    I believe you are mistaken. We sing texts, and the Lectionary contains texts. From a certain perspective, all of these texts are, in fact, ideally sung.

    The sequence translations in the Lectionary are meant to be sung, which is clear when you notice that their accentuation (generally) matches that of the Latin originals.

    My understanding is that there are scant few music collections that carry an explicit approval for liturgical use. Psallite is one, and By Flowing Waters is another. Many hymnals carry approval for publication from the local ordinary, but not technically approval for liturgical use.

    One virtue of the translations we have now (the goofy rhymes etc. notwithstanding) is their literalness. Regarding the Scagnelli translation in Gather Comprehensive, there is nothing in the Latin original that says “Lord of Light”. Still, I think the special case of the sequences’ metered verse construction warrants more acceptance of non-literal translation than is apparently going to be the modus operandi now.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Felipe,

    Actually the entrance, offertory and communion antiphon texts given in most missals were never meant to be sung. There was a discussion on this some months ago. To sing the introit one must take the Graduale or the Graduale simplex choices, for example. You will notice (after you translate the Latin) that the Graduale texts differ from the antiphon texts that we see in the missal. This situation extends to the LOH texts in a similar way. When the LOH was (hastily) assembled, the authors most likely thought that sung hours were a thing of the past and did not bother write tunes for the many new antiphons.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    Dear Michael,

    I am well acquainted with the discrepancies between the processional texts of the Missal and Gradual and the difference between the U.S. GIRM and the editio typica of that document.

    I was speaking specifically to incantu’s question about the singing of the sequence in English.

    The sung LOH is an interesting animal. I would like to track down a copy of the Ordo Cantus Officii, but it was only published (AFAIK) in Notitæ. Maybe a visit to U of St. Thomas downtown would bear fruit for me there. Hm.
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Felipe,

    Fine, but I read your statement:

    I believe you are mistaken. We sing texts, and the Lectionary contains texts. From a certain perspective, all of these texts are, in fact, ideally sung.


    differently.
  • G
    Posts: 1,400
    "Also, that metricized one in Gather probably couldn’t work the Amen/Alleluia in gracefully. (Read: Gauntlet thrown down!)"

    Then I must be remembering incorrectly what hymnal was the source of my photocopy, er... ENLARGEMENT.
    It's not metric.

    (Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
  • Steve CollinsSteve Collins
    Posts: 1,022
    I have personally had it up to my eyeballs with the ICEL texts, and many of those in the Lectionary. IMO they were NOT meant to be sung, especially to the Golden Sequence tune. There are previous Lectionary translations, and unless their approval has been officially removed, I wouldn't have any problem using them. We musicians must have some sort of input in this translation question!

    As to the "Amen, Alleluia", they come from the original Sequence - in it's proper place, as an extension of the Alleluia verse (originally "tropes" of that Alleluia verse). Look up all the Sequences in the 1962 Missal - they follow the Alleluia verse (which omits its final Alleluia) so that the "Amen" is the close of the Sequence "hymn", and the "Alleluia" the close of the extended Alleluia verse.

    Since we no longer have an actual "Alleluia verse", but rather "The Gospel Acclamation", at which we all for some reason stand as if we're hearing the Word of God that is the Gospel (but it is not). So adding the Sequence Hymn makes the whole thing MUCH too long to ask people to stand! (Ahem!) So the Sequence is now sung as a totally separate "Proper", before the "Gospel Acclamation". So, no, the final "Alleluia" no longer makes any sense. But I still see no reason to omit the "Amen".

    IMO, besides musicians being more involved in these decisions, we need to rational thinking "liturgist" involved!
  • Jeffrey TuckerJeffrey Tucker
    Posts: 3,624
    My understanding is that there are scant few music collections that carry an explicit approval for liturgical use. Psallite is one,


    Umm, there must be some good material in there. But the examples provided online were, well, let's just say that this doesn't say much for what it means to gain approval.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    My schola simply inserts the missing "Amen, alleluia" at the end of the Sequence, sung in organum. We consider its omission ( as well as the repositioning of the Sequence itself) ill-advised, and since the Church's own liturgical authorities grant seemingly limitless freedom in other musical matters, we do not consider this as taking an excessive liberty, and so we have penciled it back into our Gregorian Missals. So sue us! :-)
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    I should add that it might be different were we singing the proper Alleluia after the Sequence, as the chant books envision in an ideal world. But when in parish practice it is the same seasonal Alleluia based "O Filio et Filiae" every week, the Sequence appears out of the blue on this day as an inserted hymn text before the Gospel Acclamation begins, and so it seems more fitting that it should have its own conclusion.
  • Chris
    Posts: 80
    To sing or not to sing the Seq. at the Vigil Mass was a discussion in my parish also. I told my staff that it was to be done only on Pentecost Day, citing the MR, but 5 minutes before Mass, the pastor came up to me and pointed out that it was listed in our Ordo for the Dioceses of New Jersey. Was this an error in our local Ordo? Is it a case of OF vs. EF? I must profess a certain confusion.
  • Paul F. Ford
    Posts: 864
    Your ordo was incorrect. See above, my answer to maui_hudak.
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    John wrote:
    My schola simply inserts the missing "Amen, alleluia" at the end of the Sequence, sung in organum. We consider its omission ( as well as the repositioning of the Sequence itself) ill-advised, and since the Church's own liturgical authorities grant seemingly limitless freedom in other musical matters, we do not consider this as taking an excessive liberty, and so we have penciled it back into our Gregorian Missals. So sue us! :-)

    These authorities grant “seemingly limitless freedom” for the processional texts, but NOT for the Liturgy of the Word.

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but John, I think you are using the same logic by which people justify things like personal alterations to the Eucharistic Prayer. One visiting priest in my last parish apparently (?) wanted to emphasize the collegiality of the bishops, and when he got to the part in the EP about the bishops, he talked about Pope Benedict, the Bishop of Rome, and Daniel Pilarczyk, “the bishop of this city” (Cincinnati, OH).

    I, too, think the sequence should be after the Alleluia, and that we should have the Amen/Alleluia at the end. But I don’t own the liturgy any more than anyone else, so I don’t feel I have the right to make that change on my own.
  • john m
    Posts: 136
    Felice

    I take your point. But, lacking episcopal guidance, it would seem that we are left to our own judgment. I would be amongst the first to welcome some solid guidance from my bishop on these questions. But in the absence of that, I believe it is preferable to follow the Church's established tradition.