history of hymns replacing propers
-
True Doug, but I think the experience of the past 40 plus years has completely confused the call of St Pius X to sing the Mass, Pray the Mass.
For the modern Roman Catholic, doing stuff is participating. Not doing stuff is just showing up. This is false.
Interior conversion is above all the most important thing, for it is the will which governs what we do. Otherwise most singing and the doing of stuff tends to be dangerously stifled by our own vain glory. Then the spiritual life is going nowhere. And no matter how many Glorias we join or epistles we read or other "gifts" that we process to the altar, our participation dangerously remains external and we go no where.
Say what you like about the participation of the faithful in former times. At least they were devoted and prayed.
Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst -
Have to agree with PM. Doing "stuff" is a way for a soul to avoid interior conversion. On the other hand, the Mass is objectively the worship of God, so even the unconverted can participate on some level. Unhelpful to everyone is adding stuff extraneous to the Mass (e.g., hymns) which makes possible neither internal nor external participation in the liturgy.Thanked by 1E_A_Fulhorst
-
General question: to what extent is the loss of the propers to the hymns an American problem? I ask because I see more and more how the American Catholic Church unknowingly views Protestant customs as "real religion." (One example being the tendency of priests who desire, but misunderstand, Catholic tradition, to give very long "hellfire" homilies - which is a Protestant, not a Catholic tradition. But I'm talking about music here...American Protestants sing hymns. Is that why Catholics use - but don't sing - hymns?)
-
I can assure you, that the loss of propers to the hymns is no American problem. Here in Germany, we have a privilege we gained during the Second World War to have Missa cantata with hymns instead of the propers; I deeply regret that, but it is this way. (Concerning the long homilies, I am by far too young to have any experience of traditional homilies; however the priest with the longest homilies I know is an elderly catholic priest (ordained 1952), whose celebration of the mass lasts at least an hour, when he is giving a homily.)
-
Protasius, thanks for your input. Now my next question - could this be a problem that stems from the Protestant tradition (begun in Germany after Luther's defection) of using hymns instead of the Catholic Propers?
-
Thanked by 1CharlesW
-
Well, in Germany we have vernacular songs that date from the 13th century, thus predating Luther by two centuries; however these never replaced the propers but rather were added to them. There is e.g. a song, that was once sung alternating with the Easter sequence, "Christ ist erstanden", which is still a common song at Easter.
The replacement of propers by hymns in Catholic worship began in the counter-reformation and gained considerable influence in the18th century (a time by which at least some Lutheran churches still used Gregorian chant in parts of their worship) when "Betsingmessen" occurred through the influence of Emperor Joseph in Austria. -
Yellow, you also have to bear in mind that propers have been replaced by many different things over the centuries, not just hymns - organ pieces, motets, instrumental works, etc. Some of these things also replaced the Ordinary in certain regions or localities.
The Milanese motetti missales, for example, antedate the Reformation, so it's not like Protestant worship can be blamed for any of this. The historical record also shows that some Lutheran congregations actually *did* continue using propers from the Roman missal, another layer of complexity to the whole issue.Thanked by 1Gavin -
And some Anglican prayer books, including the first Book of Common Prayer in 1549, specified an introit psalm and often a gradual psalm that was sometimes sung from a metrical psalter...just a short step from there to a hymn instead of the psalm. The 1959/62 Canadian BCP gives an introit and a gradual psalm; these are still sung, between cantor and congregation using Gregorian tones, at St. Thomas', Huron Street, in Toronto. I've also experienced a Canadian parish where these psalms were sung in Anglican chant. Wonderful.
-
Oh if we could just get back to that perfect time when the liturgical language was the purest Latin, the music always sublime and correct, the liturgy other-worldly in its lack of secular contamination, and when no hymns were sung. When was that, by-the-way? I must have missed it.Thanked by 1Gavin
-
Papal documents, especially by a long-dead pope, still have force and effect until superseded, don't they?Thanked by 1eft94530
-
A Church council made no changes, zero, zilch, nada... It asked for the books to be revised with a set of mandates from Sacrosanctum Concilium. The concilium that took place after the council made changes with the authority of the Pope. (An altogether flawed process that was dominated by Bugnini those hardly qualified to take on the project) In substance the motu proprio of St Pius X has the greatest of force as it is an action of the Pope not merely an instruction from a dicastery during the reign of a pope. It has not been superseded because there has been no action of the pope against it. The promulgation of another missal was not supposed to change anything that relates to tra le sollecitudini. In fact we have the answer to a dubium with regards to hymns at Mass in 1969 to the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The answer was short simple and to the point. Sing the Mass, to do otherwise is to lie (or cheat) the people...
Now the liturgy fights start and the spiritual life just becomes the collateral damage or benefit of academics and so called experts. And the call of St Pius X to pray the Mass, sing the Mass has become successfully obscured, destroyed, ruptured and you name it...
But hey, St Pius X is long dead and doesn't matter... apparently the Church started in 1965. So sad.
-
No, the church did not start in 1965, but a lot has happened since then. Piux X did not have any of his edicts rescinded by a later pope, but the authority to make changes was given to others. Now we have the USCCB, which has been given authority over the rite used in most U.S. Catholic churches. Did the Council forsee the role of bishop's conferences? Probably not, but they now exist. And yes, the Council did ask for books to be revised. I think we are on the third revision now.
-
Yes revised books, not a new use. Bishops conferences have no authority over the Rite. It is not the Rite of the USA or Canada or Argentina or South Africa. It is the Roman Rite.
The bishops conference must seek a recoginitio for items such as the lectionary and an indult for instances such as communion in the hand. The rest that a conference may do is limited to discipline not the Rite itself.
3rd revision and still the same problems because the approach is deeply troubled.
No motion or (motu) of any of the Supreme Pontiffs since St Pius X has contradicted Tra le sollecitudini. Just poor practice.
Not even Musicam Sacram (1967) which is an instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites not of the Pope.
Thanked by 1eft94530 -
In truth how does he enforce it? Put us in the catacombs until we submit? It is up to us to find ways as the Church Militant to do it. With patience and persistent we can strive for it. In the same way we strive to grow in Holiness, lest we become as the Spiritual Dwarves that Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange and other spiritual writers warn.
We cannot do it all at once, but if we don't try, it is us that is "cheating" the people.
The Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus. Dogmatically defined the Assumption (1950) kinda old and not by a pope after the Council. Many people really don't get the dogma. Should we give up on it?
Granted that is a dogma of faith and not the liturgy but we are in trouble if we simply write off the universal magisterium simply because we can't see it happening.
Maybe the Pope should do us all a favour and tomorrow say: hymns are banned until further notice. Please sing the Mass and here is how.
Won't happen yet, they've done that. It is up to us to do it.
Thanked by 1eft94530 -
It seems useful here to point out that the twenty-fourth session of the Council of Trent gave bishops direct authority over liturgy in their own dioceses, which explains why there was so much local variance between 1563 and 1903 in the first place.
Francis, citing Hayburn's Papal Legislation on Sacred Music, has pointed out in another thread that various popes have "ruled" on certain liturgical matters, including replacing the propers with motets and other musical items.
So at what point does authority over liturgy shift from the Council of Trent and the bishops back to the pope?
(And, btw, not challenging anyone here or carrying an axe to grind, just thinking out loud.) -
DougS...
Please give me page and paragraph, because I believe that may have been a single instance or two at the most. Did that happen more than once? I am reading the book VERY CAREFULLY every day and haven't seen that yet. Besides, the document of 1903 supercedes that one anyway. It is sort of an anomaly. Besides that, I believe the motets they were referring to in that particular reference were motets that utilize the text of proper. So the propers are not being replaced. That is totally in line with the mandate of 1903 and holds today.
If you read ALL the bulls and documents in the PLOSM, you will find it almost unanimous that practically every Pope has fought fiercely against the abuses that constantly crept into the liturgy, especially experimental texts, theatrical and profane music AND profane performances by theatrical singers who use too much modulation in their voices. (ala opera singers).
Also, just because the prelates of the church have not enforced what the Church has asked does not render it null and void. The USCCB has no authority to supercede any of Romes documents on sacred music, and their writings of the such don't really bear any official weight. If the bishops choose to ignore the churchs' prescriptions when it comes to sacred music, then it will be for the Bishop to answer on their day.
PMulholland is dead on.
CharlesW
If we have the attitude that because 'no one else is doing what the Church wants', does that mean we are exempt from the law? No, WE who are informed and educated about what the Church wants and desires have an even greater responsibility, and it now falls to US in much greater measure. Now WE have to go back to our priests and bishops and inform them what the Church desires. And if WE think we are empowered by the error of others to persist in our own denial of the truth about what Holy Mother Church desires, well, then it will be for us to answer on our day.
If we were truly Catholic, after we all have read the many bulls, encyclicals, writings, desires and wishes of Mother Church and were sincere about carrying out those very wishes, we would strive with all our heart, soul, mind and strength to obey them and help all others to do the same. If we would synthesize and distill the many teaches and writings from Pope after Pope, we would find ourselves upholding the truth about and fighting to insure that the very simple mandate in Pius X's document was being carried out. The failing of our own Bishop or the Bishops of a nation do not excuse us or give us license to do the same.
The first three minutes of this video says it well. Instead of the disciples of Jesus gathered in this room, picture you and I, we who are the leaders of the music of the liturgy in the Church. Are we going to be cowards? Are we going to deny what the Church wants? Or are we going to stand up for the truth of what our role and purpose is and what the Church calls us to do?
cowards -
Charles, read "Papal Documents on Church Music" by Mgr. Hayburn.
Every 100 years, almost like clockwork, the Pope issues a document with the intention of reforming church music.
And every Bishop and musician in the world ignores it.
How would YOU "enforce" them? Guillotine? Firing squads? (Tempting, I know...)
The term "obedience" is not in some people's vocabulary. -
So at what point does authority over liturgy shift from the Council of Trent and the bishops back to the pope?
See Canon Law. VERY early in the canons, it's stated that only Rome (i.e., HH or the Cong./Sacred Rites, with the approval of HH) has full, complete, and final authority over liturgical matters. -
Let's just get on with it. I often think that most people are driven to TLM communities because of poorly-chosen, poorly-performed liturgical music. Do the liturgy properly, use good liturgical music and people will come to mass. Then it is only for the Priest or Bishop to give a decent homily and ensure that all the sacraments are available, and we'll see parishes and communities flourish.
-
Dad, the Council of Trent explicitly gave bishops a certain degree of autonomy over liturgical matters--though of course what those matters were specifically is not mentioned in the Council documents.
Pius X codified Canon Law in the 1910s. So, assuming for the moment that what you are saying is true about canon law, at what point does the thinking about liturgical issues change?
It is also my understanding that canon law does not actually include liturgical law, though this is certainly different than a legal definition of liturgical authority.
-
"The term "obedience" is not in some people's vocabulary. "
This is even more true today, I think. All the papal ink hasn't changed much of anything. At a personal level, I do what I can to promote good sacred music. However, I am well aware that my church is the outpost in town and we may be the only ones, at times, making the effort. The new generation of priests encourages me, because they seem to be getting much better seminary training.
I think there is a tendency for some to live in the past, cling to how things theoretically should be, and be blind to the fact that they never really were as they "should" be. Since the earliest days, there seems to have been the tendency to experiment in the Roman Rite. If it exists at all in the other rites, the desire to experiment and "improve" liturgy is much reduced. It seems that there is almost a heavenly command in the West, to "Go forth and tamper with the liturgy." There have been times when the liturgical life of the Western Church has been more stable, but someone, somewhere has always been agitating for changes under the surface.
-
I'm not sure to which comment of mine Francis is responding above.
I think EA's above comment is one of the wisest things I've seen on here:
"We don't need enforcement as much as self-regulation. We don't need top-down change. We need bottom-up obedience."
I always act in my music ministry within the bounds of my conscience. If I believe X hymn is heretical, I don't use it. If I believe that propers must be used, I use them.
I wonder how many of our above raging champions of propers wrote yesterday after a Mass in which not one proper chant was heard. I wonder....
Disobedience, indeed. -
Instead of serving up a 4-hymn sandwhich to the congregation, we need to try a formula like this:
1.) Introit Chant. - Although a hymn suitable to the feast day makes a great substitution.
2.) Motet for Offertory
3.) Communion Chant. In parishes where communion cane take a while, perhaps a short motet, communion hymn or interlude to lengthen the program.
4.) Solo Organ Postlude
And of course, sung ordinary, even if only chant. I've been pushing the ICEL chant, and now that I have my hands on the organ accompaniment, I intend to use them accompanied!
I've been making a big push to use the SEP, Anglican Gradual and the ICEL Chant Ordinary at my college when I'm taking care of music for mass. The main reason being that in years to come when my classmates have gone out into the world, they might just make mention of "Chant Masses" that they used to hear at college quite regularly, which could be accompanied, or be done unaccompanied. -
Francis, I'm referring to the Innocent XII passage about not singing motets in the place of propers. To my knowledge, the practice of singing motets with non-proper texts was relatively common before and after the Council. This is why Palestrina wrote all those Offertory motets in the first place.
-
Very true:
I think there is a tendency for some to live in the past, cling to how things theoretically should be, and be blind to the fact that they never really were as they "should" be.
... yet don't let this blind you to the fact that how things should be is how things should be! I encourage you in your efforts! -
I know how things should be. However, I am doing NO masses, not EF. The NO is not designed to be the EF, and I am not trying to make it into something it isn't. Also, there has always been a huge difference between great cathedral practice and ordinary small parish practice. What Rome can do, many parishes lack the resources to accomplish. Purists are often more difficult to deal with than heretics, although both have a skewed understanding of reality.
-
Can. 2 For the most part the Code does not define the rites which must be observed in celebrating liturgical actions. Therefore, liturgical laws in force until now retain their force unless one of them is contrary to the canons of the Code.
IOW, liturgical law is defined and promulgated outside of Canon Law, by HH or Cong/Rites. However, whatever permissions were granted to Bishops prior to the promulgation of the Law remain in force unless explicitly abrogated/derogated.
It should be noted that that "Bishop" is NOT the same as "USCC." IOW, the USCC has no authority in any Diocese. Only the Bishop has authority to govern.
Thanked by 1eft94530 -
Since the earliest days, there seems to have been the tendency to experiment in the Roman Rite.
You said a mouthful. And--sadly--a great deal of that experimentation and "improvement" has been committed by musicians. Have you noticed (e.g.) that musicians, as a group, cannot ABIDE silence? For that matter, have you noticed that musicians seem to have compulsions about "improving" Propers and Ordinaries?
Not all of it is bad; in fact, much is good. But there IS such a thing as 'sacred silence.' -
The NO is not designed to be the EF, and I am not trying to make it into something it isn't.
Umnnhhh......tell me about the differences. Both have Propers and Ordinaries, right? Both have Word, Sacrifice, and Communion rites (sections, if you will), right? Both utilize a sacred space, are held in a sacred time, use hieratic language (finally, in the case of the OF!!!!!!), and require sacred music, right?
So 'splain to me the differences, aside from 'vernacular' utilization, which as you know, was strictly limited by the Council's actual document on the liturgy. -
In practice, there are differences, although both contain many of the same elements. There have been revisions to the missal (thankfully), the choice of canons is greater, we now have GIRM to follow and, of course, vernacular liturgy. I am one old enough to remember the 25-minute Latin low mass before the Council. Interestingly, the priests seemed proud of themselves that they could do mass in the shortest possible time. It wasn't all glory in the old rite, and revisions and changes were greatly needed. Much has happened since the Council, and I did mention GIRM, which I am obligated to follow.Thanked by 1Gavin
-
Charles, with respect, you seem to be attacking something which no one here is promoting. I remember those 25 minute Masses, but I also remember the glorious, no holds barred Latin OF Masses of the Colloquium, with chant, polyphony, and everything. It CAN be done. WE can do it.Thanked by 1Ben
-
I am not attacking anything, just noting that nothing is perfect - then or now. I like chant, polyphony, good sacred music from many eras, and believe the congregation should experience enough Latin to be familiar with at least, the Ordinary. That doesn't mean, however, that I have any desire to go back to the EF mass or an all-the-time Latin NO.
-
CharlesW saidI am not attacking anything, just noting that nothing is perfect - then or now. I like chant, polyphony, good sacred music from many eras, and believe the congregation should experience enough Latin to be familiar with at least, the Ordinary. That doesn't mean, however, that I have any desire to go back to the EF mass or an all-the-time Latin NO,
The key phrase here which so many Catholics don't get is:
"that I have any desire"
Just a passing thought, but, if I was back at the scene of the crucifixion, it occurs to me that this is kind of like me looking up to Jesus hanging on the cross and saying, "Ah, excuse me, but, ah, I don't really think this is the way I would prefer to see you crucified."
It's not about what WE want or desire. It is about what THE CHURCH DESIRES and has indeed, clearly specified. There lies the rub.Thanked by 1eft94530
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,506
- General Music Discussion7,774
- Job Openings1,365
- Management of Music Programs838
- Choral Matters523
- Church Documents and Rubrics513
- CMAA Notes293
- Events665
- For Newcomers: Read First24
- Sacred Polyphony531
- Hymnody840
- Gregorian Chant: General2,614
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis357
- ↳ Graduale Simplex55
- ↳ Semiology58
- Vernacular Plainsong681
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant67
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire418
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,232
- Recordings223
- Music for Hispanic Ministry155
- Music Education: Children207
- Music Education: General217
- News Items242
- Positions Wanted58
- General Discussion: Catholicism729
- Amusements173
- General Discussion1,009
- Opinions115