The three degrees of music in Mass
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    From Musicam Sacram:

    "28. The distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, sanctioned by the Instruction of 1958 (n. 3), is retained, according to the traditional liturgical laws at present in force. However, for the sung Mass (Missa cantata), different degrees of participation are put forward here for reasons of pastoral usefulness, so that it may become easier to make the celebration of Mass more beautiful by singing, according to the capabilities of each congregation.

    These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first. In this way the faithful will be continually led toward an ever greater participation in the singing.

    29. The following belong to the first degree:

    (a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

    (b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

    (c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

    30. The following belong to the second degree:

    (a) the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;

    (b) the Creed;

    (c) the prayer of the faithful.

    31. The following belong to the third degree:

    (a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

    (b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

    (c) the Alleluia before the Gospel;

    (d) the song at the Offertory;

    (e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing."

    "36. There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses. Moreover, some other song can also, on occasions, be sung at the beginning, at the Offertory, at the Communion and at the end of Mass. It is not sufficient, however, that these songs be merely "Eucharistic" -- they must be in keeping with the parts of the Mass, with the feast, or with the liturgical season."

    My questions. Since it says "These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first" for "the sung Mass (Missa cantata)" and then it says in 36 "There is no reason why some of the Proper or Ordinary should not be sung in said Masses" are there different rules for the sung Mass and said Mass?

    Or, do these rules apply to all Masses, and by "These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third" it means that as long as some, not necessarily all, of the first degree is sung, some of the second and third degrees can be sung. Say, the priest sing just the dialogues with the people, and sing the introit.

    Also, the USCCB document Sing to the Lord seems to conflict with Musicam Sacram somewhat in these areas. Are we to follow Musicam Sacram strictly, or Sing to the Lord?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    IIRC, these rules apply to all Masses and are not all that different from the 'three degrees' found in the 9/3/1958 Instruction of Pius XII on the same topic.

    USCC documents should be regarded as authoritative only insofar as they do not contradict Roman docs on the same topic. That is to say, USCC documents may allow some deviations, but never contradictions.

    When in doubt, follow Rome.
  • RobertRobert
    Posts: 343
    Musicam Sacram predates the 1970 Missale Romanum, which does not retain any distinction between solemn, sung and read Masses. Therefore, for the OF at least, the admonition that the second or third degrees may not be used without the first would seem not to apply, although it still makes good practical sense.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Ah, once again we deal with the difficulty of making the authoritative documents from the Holy See written with an organically reformed Mass based on the 1962 Missal in mind, apply to the "Bugnini" Mass we now have to deal with, that is, the whole-cloth creation we find in the 1970 Missal.

    It's apples and oranges, my friends. IMHO the newest USCCB document at least makes an attempt, however feeble, to carry these distinctions forward and apply them to their rather sui generis terminology of "progressive solemnity."

    In my experience as a suburban parish music director, I've never quite understood why there is this habit of trying to make daily Masses (especially those at which the attached school makes up the principal congregation) into something they were never intended to be - some kind of strange hybrid of a Sunday Mass, incorporating aspects of the three degrees to a Mass that should probably be a "read" Mass with no music. None (or perhaps only a few) of the proper psalm refrains of the daily lectionary have been effectively set to music, although the verses could be sung to chant formulas. The same is true of the verses before the gospel. And, unless I'm mistaken, there isn't a Graduale or Gregorian Missal with chants appropriate to the daily Mass texts. This rules out the first degree immediately, doesn't it?

    So, ISTM that these three degrees and their cousin "progressive solemnity" really apply only to Sundays and Solemnities, and not daily Masses, Feasts or votive Masses. Perhaps more importantly, the three degrees really only apply to the EF and the NO as conceived by the council Fathers, and not to the 1970 Missal, for which only the concept of "progressive solemnity" can only be very tenuously applied.

    I also think it's worth mentioning that the whole concept of "progressive solemnity" is a very odd concept indeed. In practice it seems that it is the attitude of the "gathered community" and their view of the importance of the celebration at hand that dictates how solemn the occasion is going to be, rather than the dictates of the calendar. With that idea in mind, it then becomes necessary for whoever is in charge of the selection and execution of the music to impose this sense of solemnity upon the liturgy by artificially beefing up the music in ways that were never really intended, by selecting music (including the scoring and use of instruments) that doesn't relate to the liturgy, but rather relates to the grandness of the scale of the celebration as perceived by the congregation. What you end up with is a "mix and match" approach to music that serves the people, not the liturgy. So, while the idea of "progressive solemnity" looks good in print, in practice it seems to be ignored, or worse, a dismal failure.
  • incantuincantu
    Posts: 989
    I think the issue with "progressive solemnity" is that the term was originally used as a long term approach for moving toward a completely sung Mass. These more recent documents have used it to suggest that more things should be sung on certain days than on others. I think that twists the ideal that all things should be sung on all days. Some people have taken this new concept of progressive solemnity so far as to think the Gloria should only be sung during the Easter season, and recited it or left out completely the rest of the year. Or that hymns should replace propers, except on special occasions.
  • Chris AllenChris Allen
    Posts: 150
    David Andrew: "And, unless I'm mistaken, there isn't a Graduale or Gregorian Missal with chants appropriate to the daily Mass texts. This rules out the first degree immediately, doesn't it?"

    I know the Gregorian Missal covers just Sundays/solemnities/feasts/etc., but, IIRC, the chants in the Graduale Romanum for, say, the 15th Week of Ordinary Time are supposed to be used for the entire week, not just that Sunday (any differences in specific chants for certain days of the week are noted).
  • Felipe Gasper
    Posts: 804
    David,

    The lections are about the only parts of the Mass that actually vary from day to day in the liturgical temporal cycle. If you look at the presidential prayers, they are assigned to particular weeks of OT, not to specific days of that season.

    Likewise, the chants of the Graduale Romanum generally are assigned for entire weeks, not for specific days. (Lent and the 2nd part of Advent are the exceptions to this rule.)
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    I think I understand, and I'm sorry for being confused. Much of this is newer to me, having not been in a parish where these things are regularly employed. I see that the 1970 Missal does indeed provide that any Sunday Mass may be celebrated on any ferial weekday, the lections assigned notwithstanding. So then the chants from any Sunday could be used from the GR for any given weekday.

    So, as Musicam sacram places the chanting of the psalm and the gospel verse (with alleluia) in the third degree, these could be spoken at a Mass where the elements of the first degree are chanted. But, in the first degree listing, they include "Liturgy of the Word". Does this mean that the lections must be chanted? It would be interesting to see just how these three degrees can be practically applied to the 1970 Missal. It seems altogether confused, given that MS was written (as I said before) with the 1962 Missal in mind, not the "Bugnini" experiments.

    By the way, one wonders out loud why exactly the Holy See has remained silent since the instruction Musicam sacram was issued in '67, given that much of it applies to a Missal that up until last July 7 (grazie, Papa Ratzinger!) was only used under indult, while the 1970 Missal has had relatively little direct instruction since its promulgation by Rome viz-a-viz music apart from the nonsense from the USCCB?
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    David, it is important to recall that the ideal Mass is ALWAYS sung--to one degree or the other. The "low Mass" model was killed, more or less, with the VatII reforms, although nobody wanted to admit it in public, given its popularity and the practical problems.

    And, like it or not, it is very important that the priest sing his parts (as much as practically possible) to encourage the Faithful to sing THEIR parts.

    That's why the "distinctions" were dropped.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Sure, the "low Mass" model was killed, and it was buried in the box the "hymn sandwich" paradigm came in. I can't agree with your assessment that the ideal is to ALWAYS have singing at Mass. Where did this come from? If this were so, ISTM that the Holy See would have issued something abrogating, replacing or redefining aspects of Musicam sacram which to date they have not done. Therefore, it remains in full force and effect, regardless what our pals at the USCCB may have to say about it. Remember, not one single document from the USCCB, be it Music in Catholic Worship, Liturgical Music Today, or Sing to the Lord have the required recognitio of the Holy See which would give it the effect of supplanting instructions to the contrary as found in Musicam sacram.

    My other point is, there hasn't, since 1970, been what I would consider a satisfactory set of music for use with either the weekday lectionary or indeed the Mass itself for weekdays, the reference to the Graduale Romanum above notwithstanding. We end up cobbling together something that ends up looking more like a freakish hybrid of the Sunday liturgy (at least in most OF parishes that aren't doing the NO in Latin) and often are "forced", given the circumstances like "school Masses", to use sung psalmody and the like that makes me wonder about appropriateness.

    Am I just unreasonably frustrated? I would really like to figure out just what is intended with respect to daily Masses, so that I can have a philosophical leg to stand on especially when discussing the "school Mass" phenomenon in my parish with out new pastor.
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    So, i'm not sure what to think now.

    Do the three degrees apply to the 1970 missal, or don't they? It doesn't make sense that they would write this document 3 years before the missal, if they did not intend for the contained norms to apply to it. I mean, Vatican II applies to the 1970 Missal. The Missal was formed in response to Vatican II, and so was Musicam Sacram.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Gilbert,

    I appreciate your confusion, but keep in mind that the only Mass known to (or even conceived by) the Council Fathers was contained in the Missal of 1962. All of the documents regarding the Mass and its reforms were written with that Missal in mind. So, Vatican II does not apply to the 1970 Missal, but this is what the progressives would like to have us think. They would have us believe that documents like Musicam sacram are outdated precisely because they apply to a Missal that had been entirely replaced by the 1970 Missal. This we know is not true. Rather than an organic development of the Mass which took into account the concepts spelled out in the Constitution and its subsequent instructions, a small group of controlling cardinals created a whole new Mass out of whole cloth. (This is an over-simplification of the historical facts, but you get the idea).

    Hence your confusion. We now are trying to apply official, legislative documents from the Holy See to a liturgy the Holy See at the time never knew or even conceived of. This is the hermeneutic of rupture that the Holy Father has spoken of.

    In the final analysis, it is my opinion that the three degrees specified in MS can and do apply to the 1970 Missal, and that it has been the great folly and mistake of the self-serving, narcissistic progressive liturgy types that have led us to buy into the notion that there should be singing at EVERY Mass, ALWAYS. There must have been a reason why "read Masses" were considered appropriate or necessary, otherwise it wouldn't have been discussed in MS. More importantly, bear in mind that the three degrees spelled out in MS were conceived as a guide for developing a higher degree of congregational singing within the Mass. ISTM that to apply these three degrees too strictly is to disregard an important phrase in the instruction itself regarding "pastoral usefulness."

    Remember too that, as I've stated before, unless and until the Holy See issues an instruction to the contrary, the instruction Musicam sacram is still the last word on music in the liturgy, the confused nonsense from the American bishops notwithstanding.
  • Gilbert
    Posts: 106
    So, does Musicam Sacram intend that all of degree 1 be sung before any of 2 and 3 are sung, or rather that at least some of degree 1 be sung before singing some of degrees 2 and 3?
  • Michael O'Connor
    Posts: 1,637
    Unfortunately in the real world Musicam sacram is taken about as seriously as the call to preserve the Latin language. The challenge as most of the posters have stated is how to work on the margins to slowly work in the direction of the Church's desire. While I no longer have a position in a parish, I was able to carve out one hour on Sunday -- call it our "high Mass" -- where folks could see and hear a close approximation of the ideal if they so chose. I liked to call it a Mass in the "real" spirit of Vatican II!
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    Felipe Gasper,

    If I wanted, for instance, to start a small schola to sing the NO according to the Gregorian Missal at daily Masses (say, First Fridays), what would that look like in terms of the chants used? If you could flesh out a basic example, I'd appreciate it. In your response above, you mentioned the presidential prayers for OT being drawn from the Sunday previous, but what about Advent, Lent, Feasts or obligatory memorials? (Something tells me that with obligatory memorials the rules remain the same; only the collect changes for the memorial).

    I'm seriously considering doing this, as the folks that attend daily Mass are among our most conservative, and likely to respond very positively to this. Also, our new pastor has a very highly developed devotion to the blessed sacrament and is dedicated to perpetual adoration, so I'm likely to get his support for this.
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    David, so that we understand each other, please know that I am not a liturgical 'lefty.'

    The "low Mass" emerged in monestaries where the practical problem of having (say) 50 priests wishing to offer Mass and only one principal (sung) Mass was offered. So the side-altars were set up, and the other 49 priests read their Masses.

    The "low Mass" was then exported to other venues--e.g., churches under persecution in England and Ireland, and in the USA, where 6-8 Masses were offered every Sunday to accomodate 4,000 parishioners in a 600-seat building. (You can move the numbers around and still get the idea.)

    But the SUNG Mass was, and remains now, the ideal. The language you cite from USCC is certainly a product of discontinuity and you are correct: USCC (or the BCL) has no authority unless Rome specifically endorses their documents.

    As to the authority of my statement: see Fortescue/O'Donnell's "Ceremonies of the Roman Rite," (St. Austin Press, 1996) P. 57:

    "Although Solemn Mass, historically, is the original rite, so that Low Mass is really only a shortened form of that, nevertheless..."
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Correction: it is O'Connell, not O'Donnell.
  • David AndrewDavid Andrew
    Posts: 1,206
    dad29,

    Thank you for the historical insight. These discussions are always a way of putting a steep incline in the ol' learning curve.

    What's worse? I've got a copy of Fortescue on my shelf, and didn't have the foresight to consult it on this issue! (I should have my DMA revoked.)
  • Andrew
    Posts: 22
    Cardinal Heenan of Westminster had this to say regarding Vatican II's Constitution on the Liturgy as opposed to the New Mass promulgated in 1970:

    "The subject most fully debated was liturgical reform.

    It might be more accurate to say that the bishops were under the impression that the liturgy had been fully discussed.

    In retrospect it is clear that they were given the opportunity of discussing only general principles.

    Subsequent changes were more radical than those intended by Pope John and the bishops who passed the decree on the liturgy.

    His sermon at the end of the first session shows that Pope John did not suspect what was being planned by the liturgical experts."

    http://www.unavoce.org/articles/2001/english_indult.html
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,232
    Well, David, I actually did not know that 'the sung Mass is the ideal' until 2 years ago. Frankly, I always thought sung/read was a tossup, depending on circumstances.

    Think of it this way: in all probability, I'm older than you are. So I'm just a slow learner.
Add a Comment