Hurry up the music, so I can get back to my real life... (Duty vs. Reverence?)
  • "As liturgical musicians, our ministry is to enhance the liturgy and to involve the congregation in this prayer of music. When a hymn is written, there is a reason to sing all the verses to bring the entire theme of the song to the congregation. Do we deny the fullness of a message when we do not sing all verses of a hymn?"

    A question from the mother of Purple Squirrel...
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Claire H
    Posts: 370
    People at my parish are very sadly focused on getting over with the music and the Mass as quickly as possible. :( Our young pastor (who in his zeal can get a little lengthy with his preaching at times) gets complained at if a Sunday Mass goes longer than 1 hr and 5 or 10 min...
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    This tension is inherent in most strophic hymns, and it illustrates why the Mass is not designed to use hymns.

    Instead, the propers of the Mass are structured as antiphons that are alternated with psalm verses. These can be sung with more or fewer verses as needed to fit the time of the action -- the entrance procession, the preparation of the gifts, the distribution of communion.

  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    So.... Verses that go with the antiphons are of successively less importance? This has always troubled me.
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,215
    And they're even dispensable if the action is completed soon enough to need no verses.

    There may be something in the norms in the Graduale to let you select among the psalm verses.
    Thanked by 1miacoyne
  • @Chonak- bingo! Strophic and/or
    metrical hymns are not native to sung liturgy.
    Their message is best revealed in vespers and private devotions of parish life.
    Thanked by 1Chris Allen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Hymns ... well, except perhaps for the Gloria in excelsis, which is a hymn ... and sequences, which are hymns. So, non-strophic, non-metrical hymns are okay - or just some of them?
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    "Verses that go with the antiphons are of successively less importance?"

    This line of reasoning seems very silly to me, also. I wish someone had let King David know we only needed one verse for the psalms - would have saved him some time!
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 5,193
    Gavin - my point exactly!!

    It's not as if the verses and repetition of the Antiphon are some kind of "walking music" (which, I suppose, in some sense they are). But if the verses are dispensible, then, except for the Antiphon, one might soon find the organist "noodling" to accompany the action. *shudders*
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • Unfortunately, this mentality seems to go along with the "instant gratification" society in which we live. And, it's not just the music, either. We have several people complaining about our pastor's use of the Roman Canon, saying it is too long and wordy. People want to get the "credit" for attending mass, without really "attending". Walking in the door late and leaving early is common among many people, let alone wanting to sing verse after verse of hymns/psalms, etc. Although I will NOT subscribe to such thinking, I've tried to make our music attractive to everyone by changing voices on some thing,s i.e., choir sings, then solo, then choir, then small group, etc., or having a couple of soloists share verses. With the synthesizing keyboard, I'm also able to chance the voice on the keyboard, so the music doesn't always sound the same, which is sometimes attractive to more people. But, I will NOT shorten the length of the mass by lessening music just because people "have better things to do". The other night one of our parishioners turned off the sound system before I was done playing postludes because "I was done singing and everybody left". Another example of "hurry up and get it over with".

    And, that you, Gavin, for facitiously mentioning King David. I totally agree on that one. Poor guy.....could have gotten a lot more sleep, instead of praising the Lord through song since so many modern people feel his successive verses are so less important than the first one. I've found that to be quite the contrary, actually. The psalms get stronger the more verses we sing. Again, instant gratification society. Hurry up and get it over with!
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • miacoyne
    Posts: 1,805
    I don't think it's about whether all the verses are important to be sung in the Mass. The Church maintains the tradition of singing enough verses to fit the action of the liturgy. The music supports the liturgy, not the other way around. I believe King David agrees with the Holy Church also.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    No doubt practicality plays a role - otherwise, Low Mass would be overflowing on the day Psalm 119 was being chanted! But still, the psalms are the SOLE inspired hymn-book.

    My own preference would be to do the psalm in the style of the Office: antiphon, all verses, doxology, antiphon. I wouldn't be so worried about cutting verses if we did more than one! But where would one find a whole psalter in Latin for chanting.... Similarly, in my Episcopal job, sometimes I have the choir chant the Introit in English from SEP or some other resource. In that case, I usually have cantored the first verse and 3-4 significant verses.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    "My own preference" is not a rubric. The Office is the Office, the Mass is the Mass, and Holy Church has, over the last 1500+ years, developed the way SHE asks us, out of obedience (and discipline), to execute (celebrate, whatever term you wish to apply) these liturgical exercises.
    Thanked by 1SkirpR
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    And, while we're on the subject of preference, my preference would be that the Church lay down the law on this matter once and for all, declaring Protestant hymnody, praise music, contemporary styles that borrow or ape Broadway, folk, "world music" and other styles to be forbidden under pain of sin. Period.

    The more EF Masses and OF ritual Masses (Nuptial Masses in particular) that I participate in as a sacred musician, the more I truly dislike having to play "4-hymn sandwich" Masses weekend after weekend, scraping through the hymnal to find hymns that are singable and familiar, have at the very least Catholic-leaning texts that haven't been butchered, and that fit as closely as possible the intended text they're replacing. It is exhausting and at times impossible, and frankly I don't think it works. I'd rather open the Gregorian Missal to the correct page, and chant what's there. Simple. Plain. Easy (once you get the hang of chant).

    Say the Black, Do the Red. Save the Liturgy, Save the World.

    My preferences don't count, and shouldn't count. Ever.
    Thanked by 1veromary
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,978
    Don't knock the Protestant hymns. Some of the traditional ones have more Catholic doctrine in them than the current crop of "Catholic" hymns.
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,086
    Well, we could have positive law making chant the sole allowed music. The Church has had that option available, but has never chosen to exercise it. We might well ask why. The Church is not infallible in prudential matters, but the charitable assumption is that they know what they're doing. Perhaps we should ask what the mind of the Church is regarding the use of the freedom we've been given, as opposed to spending our energies criticizing the work of others.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    While my preferences don't count either, I would like to be able to go to Mass while on vacation and not have to worry that my children will hear something sung that I'll have to correct the theology of afterwards. Of course I would like the same assurance that they won't hear heresy preached, but that's a whole different conversation.

    I'm not a big fan of hymns at Mass, but if they must be sung is it too much to ask that they be...you know...CATHOLIC in their theology?

    It would be a lot easier to seek to understand the mind of the church on this issue if we didn't have so many church musicians taking that inch they've been given by holy Mother Church and running a country mile with it.

    But as usual that's just my opinion and your mileage may vary.

  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    As noted before, the Church has not forbidden hymns to replace propers. In fact it is a legitimate option.

    It's not as though the Pope and other various members of the hierarchy don't know about hymns or aren't aware of them. In the United States, where most places USUALLY use hymns instead of propers, we have VERY faithful and orthodox Cardinals and Archbishops who continually kneel before the Holy Father and who have been continually advanced and affirmed in their fidelity by being tapped by the Holy See for new missions (think Archbishop Sartain, Cardinal Wuerl, and Cardinal Dolan, to name a few) who have NOT chosen to come out against the use of hymns and in whose cathedrals hymns regularly replace propers.

    I just don't see this as a big deal. Yes, I use settings of the propers whenever possible in my own church. But we also use hymns.

    I would rather take a stand on weak or bad theology and questionable genres of music than do so over the use of non-chant hymns.
    Thanked by 2Gavin ContraBombarde
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,509
    I see it as a huge deal, not because hymns are bad, but because propers are awesome, and the people have a right to them. I think we could and should have more leadership on this issue, although I certainly get that there are excellent reasons why a bishop would not choose to fight this particular battle. So, until things change, if we have hymns, they ought to be great. Not just non-heretical, but great.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Ben
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    I agree, Kathy. It is a big deal. Since when should singing the words of man be better than singing the words of God? It's licit, but so are some other less than ideal things. Licit doesn't mean best.

    "Children's Masses" are licit at this point in time. It appears the EPs for Masses with Children might even still be licit for usage.

    Point taken?
  • While I certainly agree with most all of you, propers that are done, when able, is definitely nice, and absolutely liturgical in every way,,,, there is nothing wrong with playing hymns. If you are having trouble selecting hymns, pull out the scriptural index, and get working. I have hardly had trouble selecting hymns that follow the readings. For those organists that keep bashing hymn playing, I can't imagine where you studied organ. Hymn playing is and should definitely be apart of organ study. What I will say about hymns is this, for God's sake, stop playing hymns with the same registration, 5 verses later, with no life, no zeal or zest for life. Perhaps a good old fashioned Frederick Swann Introduction, with registration changes every verse or two, with a nice interlude to modulation, couldn't hurt? There's ways to play hymns, and praise the Lord just as "King David" would praise.

    When I assumed the DM position I am in, a pianist was the organist, and would play through 5 verses of Amazing Grace in the same registration, same tone, same volume, till your ears were bleeding. When I took over that person's organ duties, I started to use hymn introductions, with registration changes, and modulations, to the point I have been bombarded, (all pun intended) by parishioners that were very happy to now sing and praise, with hymns. So I can't see where you find "praising God with hymns" as offensive to the liturgy. The only offense to the liturgy, is sitting there playing through a proper, or hymn, and watching the congregation stare into space, waiting till the chanting or organ, finishes. The documents are also clear about participation. If they participate with propers, God Bless them, but not all parishes have congregations that will adapt to that, some like to sing hymns. There is nothing wrong with that. I love gregorian chant, and yet, not everyone does, and I realize this, so it is important to gauge what your congregation will accept. Until the documents say, hymns are out, they are there to stay.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • PaixGioiaAmorPaixGioiaAmor
    Posts: 1,473
    The propers are GREAT and I am almost obsessive about using them.

    But don't be "more Catholic than the Pope" here. I take my cues from the Hierarchy. And I don't see any of them making a big fuss about hymns being used.
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    "But don't be "more Catholic than the Pope" here." - PaixGioiaAmor

    Don't forget: the propers are frequently used at papal Masses. Check it out:

    Jan 1: two gregorian propers, one latin motet.
    Baptism of the Lord: two gregorian propers, one latin motet.

    That's a pretty frequent arrangement it appears. It's hardly "more Catholic than the pope" to use the propers. However, even if he didn't, they are the first option in all the relevant documents, so you would be perfectly justified in using them.

    "The documents are also clear about participation. If they participate with propers, God Bless them, but not all parishes have congregations that will adapt to that, some like to sing hymns. [...] Until the documents say, hymns are out, they are there to stay." - MichaelM

    However, the documents are also clear that participation does not nessicarily mean needing to sing either. Some of my deepest participation I've experienced personally was at a silent low Mass.

    But the thing that is so often missed: the liturgy is not about getting a popular vote on what we should or shouldn't do. That's how we got clown Masses and polka Masses. If a congregation "can not actively participate" with the propers, then you should not give up on using the propers. There should be catechesis, and a gradual introduction of the propers. The documents are pretty clear that the propers, and chant are the preferred music of the rite. Anything else is second to those. Like I mentioned above: licit≠best. There's more to rubrics than liceity.
  • I applaud those that wish to sit silently at mass, and call that participation. If that's your way of worshiping, God Bless you. I don't prefer that. I love big hymns, with hymn intros, interludes, and modulations, with all the cherries on top. As for good vs. bad. I think I'll leave that one up to God to decide. As long as they aren't heretical, secular tunes being used, and good hymns of quality and proper theology are being employed. I have no problem using them, and lucky for me I am DM, because I will continue using them, along side of using propers. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. God has given each one of us talents to use, such as the parable of the talents. I choose to use all my talents and invest in them, instead of hiding a talent of hymn playing, for the sake of "only" using propers as the only way. Hymns are an option in the instructions as well, and guess what, I wouldn't call using hymns, starting clown masses. They have been using hymns since way before both you and I were even a speckle in parent's eyes. Hence the 1940 hymnal, and many before it.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • Ditto to Kathy's comment. Gregorian propers are awsome, and replacing them is less than fully sung liturgy. It can often work well to sing the Introit, Offertory, and Communion as well as short hymns at those times of the liturgy.

    After three years of weekly low and sung masses in the EF, I can say Graduals, Tracts, and Alleluias deserve to be restored more often in the OF, too. But that's another topic...

    What I find most interesting is that Vatican II clearly sought to move more toward sung liturgy. What happened instead in most places was a continuation of low mass with hymns, the original four hymn sandwich, only the spoken prayers were more aloud. Critics of the older mass don't seem to acknowledge this...

    Anyhow, we are still a long way from realizing the goals of the council... a learning curve, I hope. Sung liturgy in mostly the same language can go a long way toward solidifying (rebuilding?) our identity as a Latin rite Catholics. Here's hoping Catholic musicians increasingly embrace fully sung liturgy, and align their personal preference with their duty to the believing community they serve.
  • @Ben Yanke, while I agree with you that it is preferred to use the propers, using hymns is also permitted. If we examine the documents, it's very clear. It may be second, but guess what, I would prefer to drive around the Bentley and Jag as well, but unfortunately, I am stuck driving around the cadillac (hymns) instead. Is it still an option. Yes. Why aren't the bishops fighting over it? Because it was very clear in the documents, and needs no clarification. Hymns can be used, and have a place as well. As long as everything is theologically sound and no heresy detected, they have a place in liturgy as well. Some may cry out against it, but as stated above, their is no rush from any bishops or cardinals, to attempt to pick a battle with it. That must be some type of indication. The fact of the matter is, out of the thousands of parishes and churches around the US, and even world, it is only a small percentage that actually employ using propers. Probably less than 5%. That is a very small number. Is it sad, yes, absolutely. I agree with you wholeheartly, that we should expose the Catholic faithful to propers, gregorian chant, etc.... But at the same token, excluding hymns just isn't going to happen. No matter how you look at it, it will probably never take a dominant stand in the liturgy. The truth tends to hurt, but it is what it is. The "hymn sandwich" is far from going away, and as the documents specify clearly, they have no intention of removing that.

    Those that are fortunate to have a fully sung liturgy with propers, are very fortunate, but the reality is, it will probably never really regain full acceptance amoung the Catholic faithful. We need to face the facts.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • veromaryveromary
    Posts: 162
    With the original thing of whether we deprive people when we skip verses - if they have the words there they can read on in the silences (especially that nice peaceful silence we're supposed have after Mass) or read their Missal or prayer book of their choice. I grew up reading hymnbooks during Mass - memorising Godhead here in hiding. As long as the hymnbooks are full of Catholic poetry, it's a good thing.

    With only getting in the first few verses - could it also be a case of hoping people know the rest - like the "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me" from the Cross - didn't need to quote the whole psalm, they get the picture.

    And there's no guarantee the people can decode what's being sung, but if they have it all written out they can pray it in their own time.

    There's enough of an obstacle in the way just to get back to good hymns - affirming the Real Presence fr'instance.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • BenBen
    Posts: 3,114
    @MichaelM

    But note that in that 5% of parishes, St. Peter's Basilica and St. John Lateran are counted. That should say something, considering the Holy Father's liturgy is a model for the world. And the propers are certainly spreading too. The communion chant from the triplex was recently sung at one of the papal Masses "on the road." Closer to home, a schola recently sung the gregorian propers for a massive Men's confrence which previously had p/w. Scholas even sang at a youth rallies, and almost sang at another (probably will next year). So yes, they aren't widely known, but the knowledge is spreading.

    Even STTL from the USCCB reiterates the importance of the propers (see no. 117). Can we implement propers at every parish overnight? No! But should we start working towards it? Most certainly.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • @BenYanke, I agree with you, they do need to be taught, but what everyone on here wishes and desires, is probably not going to happen in their, or our, time. We have to face the facts. The fact that St. Peter's Basilica uses them and St. John Lateran, is of no surprise, but Ben, let's be honest, count the amount of Catholic parishes in the US alone, and still it will probably be a very low percentage, that actually use, or even know what an antiphon is.

    And while the three big major companies continue to dominate hymnal/songbook existance, your going to keep hearing less and less of those propers. I think this would be a fairly safe bet I could place, that hymns are hardily going to go away, and in fact with the introduction of more pop contemporary into the mass, we will see even a furtherance of the use of vencular hymns, and songs, or tune diddies.

    Do I agree with it, no, absolutely not, but with the same token, I enjoy hymns, and as a DM, would never see it's existence, abolished. I can probably vouch on the fact that in the two dioceses that I work between, it's pretty safe to say they won't be abolishing it either.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    I've been thinking of these issues from a different perspective and am considering posting about them at Cafe. The perspective comes from Fr. Chris. Smith's article, "SSPX, who cares?" and some reactions by JT and others. It seems to me that all of us in the WWInterlinknet Catholic commentariat need to get a grip on some realities that are being played out in real time and real politik between the RCC and SSPX regarding intransience versus reconciliation.
    All of us here likely acknowledge that whether the smoke of Satan, Bugnini's "being" a secret Freemason, or post-conciliar documents suffered brain death by committee, the documents (as noted by PGA) and our own history testify to the Church's wisdom towards tolerance or even enculturation in order to spread the gospel. That's just the way it is.
    So, each of us ought to ask ourselves whether by publicly presenting and insisting upon our interpretations of intent and practice as absolute and authentic ("more Catholic than the Pope...")- "What is the benefit and cost of speaking of these or other liturgical/ecclesial LARGE matters as authoritative and, in essence, expressing a prima facie disrespect and dismissal of doctrinal legislation?
    Now before anyone goes nuclear on me, I'm not saying don't put into effect your absolutes into practice in your own parishes if you believe them in concert with the "true intent" of VII docs and Pius X and B16's motu's. But, I kind of wonder if such public carping here and elsewhere is not as unseemly as some of the recalcitrance of certain bishops and factions within SSPX that present huge obstacles to the invitation and charity extended them by our Holy Father. Maybe this seems like apples and oranges to most of you reading this. But I'm reminded of "temperance in all things."
  • There's no doubt that most American parishes are not familiar with antiphons, but that doesn't mean they cannot be educated in using them. Most hymnals and/or worship aids include all the antiphons. Now that we are about to enter Ordinary Time, perhaps it's time to start rehearsing our choirs with SEP and prepare them for Advent this year. If the choirs are comfortable and can easily follow chant (not neumes, I would suggest modern notation at first, going to neumes later down the line), then perhaps our congregants will be more comfortable. Nothing is worse than being in a congregation trying to sing something that the choir obviously (and painfully) cannot lead.
    Thanked by 1PurpleSquirrel