The January 2012 USCCB Newsletter - Reflections on the "controversy" - Hymns Replacing Propers
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Since the publication of the January 2012 Newsletter, my E-mail inbox has been abuzz with comments & questions concerning this. In particular, many have been troubled by this statement:

    “Chant” (the translation of the Latin cantus) is intended here to refer not to a particular musical form (e.g., Gregorian chant), but as a general title for any musical piece. This is seen most clearly in the Missal itself. During the Good Friday celebration, the Missal has as a heading for one section, “Chants to Be Sung during the Adoration of the Holy Cross.” The “Chants” that follow include antiphons, the Reproaches, and a hymn. Similarly, in Appendix II, the Rite for the Blessing and Sprinkling of Water, a rubric states, “one of the following chants... is sung.” There follows antiphons and a hymn. From these examples, it is clear that the Missal in no way forbids the use of hymns or songs for the Entrance and Communion processions.


    As we know, all of the items cited there (the Crux Fidelis, etc.) are, in fact, Gregorian chant.

    When I first started getting these E-mails several weeks ago, I immediately started "typing" some thoughts and reflections. Then I put them away for a while, to let them "cool down." Now that they have "cooled," I went ahead and posted them: perhaps they will serve as a starting point for conversations, dialogue, etc.

    Part 1    Part 2

    P.S.

    Feel free to rip my relections and ideas to shreds!

    :-)
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • JahazaJahaza
    Posts: 470
    At the risk of repeating myself, Gregorian hymns have very little to do with common-practice hymn tunes: one is metrical and tonal, the other rhythmically free and modal. For more on this subject, please see Adrian Fortescue.

    Is "metrical" being used in some special sense here? Because e.g. the Gregorian office hymns are written in meters (albeit with a formula for introducing irregularities).
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Hello! I meant metrical as regards the music itself. That is, 4/4 or 3/4. Gregorian hymns are usually in a free rhythm (although, originally some later ones might have been sung in some kind of regular meter).
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,200
    Jeff, thank you so much for a thoughtful and elucidating commentary.

    I'm wondering if a number of composers (including myself in the 1980s) were setting the Entrance Antiphons and Communion Antiphons from the Missal, at least in part, because of (a) ignorance, (b) lack of access to translated texts from the Graduale Romanum, and/or (c) plainly seeing these Antiphons printed in the Missals/Sacramentary, but evidently and almost uniformly ignored by the priests celebrating Mass, and thereby taking some sort of "preemptive" response by composing and using music for these Antiphons - figuring that this was better than nothing.

    Since you have invited response to your coments, I have one (possibly minor, but significant to me and other composers) quibble. First, you wrote:
    Where it is pastorally necessary to replace the Propers with hymns, I would suggest that the primary emphasis need not be fitting the readings. In my view, the following two criteria should be applied:

    1. As much as possible, the hymn should match the feast, if there be a marked character.

    2. The melody should be well known and loved by the congregation.

    While the first is obvious, some may question the second. However, let us think about what is happening: we are replacing the text and music the Church has assigned over centuries with a hymn. Why? Is it not to encourage more participation? Is it not to allow the congregation to sing a melody they know and works well with a group? If so, then the second reason becomes very important. If not, then why are we replacing the Proper in the first place? As a reminder, this replacement must always be within in the confines established by the Church (mentioned above): no secular styles, no raucous music, etc.

    I really think that your two criteria are rather limited - and limiting (if not unintentionally biased against sensitive contemporary composers and lyricists) to the development of hymnody. There are good new hymn texts that cry out for being set to music as well as new hymn tunes that are appealing, capture the sense of the text and the Mass part (eg. Communion or Offertory or Introit) which, in many cases, are at least as good as older "traditional" hymn tunes, if not clearly better. Therefore, I would respectfully suggest that a third criterion be added reflecting the appropriateness of these gifts, in our own time, to the long history of musical and literary art in the Church.

    This quibble aside, you have done us all a great service, Jeff. Thank you so much.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Charles, your point is well taken.

    As an aside, I don't think the Roman Gradual Introits for Sundays are all that different from the Missal ones, but the Communions frequently are.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    My reflection (that many might have seen me post in other places) is thus:

    No one has been able to explain this very clear contradiction: If chant means "song" or "hymn," then why is "hymn" still used to refer to something that may be sung after the communion chant?

    "However, if there is to be a hymn after communion, the communion chant should be ended in a timely manner." GIRM no. 86

    It's a logical contradiction to say that chant really means hymn. Can anyone explain this? At all?
  • AJ in Toronto
    Posts: 28
    I think they are distinguishing between music which has a specific liturgical function and other music that can be added. In the Roman Missal materials for Canada, it is explained this way:

    "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. Care should be taken that singers, too, can receive Communion with ease.

    In the dioceses of Canada singing at Communion may be chosen from among the following: the antiphon from the Graduale Romanum, with or without the Psalm, or the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, or some other suitable liturgical chant approved by the Conference of Bishops of Canada. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or a cantor with the people.

    When the distribution of Communion is over, if appropriate, the Priest and faithful pray quietly for some time. If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation."
  • MarkThompson
    Posts: 768
    "However, if there is to be a hymn after communion, the communion chant should be ended in a timely manner." GIRM no. 86

    It's a logical contradiction to say that chant really means hymn. Can anyone explain this? At all?


    And if the heart is an organ, then how could you say that a person had organ damage but his heart was okay? It must be a paradox.

    Well, no. The heart is an organ, just like a hymn is a kind of "cantus" -- the word really just means "something sung." Thus the rubric simply means that at Communion there is "something sung," and then afterwards maybe a hymn.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Charles,

    By the way, in that article, I should say that I was also reacting to an idea that was expressed several times to me over E-mail. This is when people with good intentions replace the Propers "because they don't match the readings." For instance, in the Gospel where our Lord walks on water, they put "Be not afraid" as the Entrance chant . . .
Add a Comment