I think there is a breakdown in communication about what constitutes a local custom.

Let's assume for the moment that "Gregorian chant" was never one thing. We might consider the variants in Germanic vs. Aquitanian mss as evidence. These are local customs, are they not? Then, again, we might consider the variants in the dozens if not hundreds of post-Tridentine graduals that Theodore Karp has compared side-by-side in his two-volume book on the subject. These are local custom, too, right? Local graduals had been produced and used for over a thousand years prior to 1903/08, and their continued production was sanctioned by the Council of Trent.

Then we get the Ratisbon edition. Terrible. Practically everyone agreed on this point.

But then Pope Pius X and others decided that we can arrive at a transcendental version of the chant through paleographic scholarship done at Solesmes? As Liz Lemon on 30 Rock would say, "What the what?!"

The problem here is that the passage Chrism quotes from Pius X presumes that Gregorian chant is *one* thing, which we are assuming for the moment that it never was. Now, how does it feel to switch sides and put ourselves in the mind of Pius X? We can make the opposite assumption: that Gregorian chant has "purity." Isn't there a lot of contrary evidence?

Creating a *single* gradual for use by the entire Catholic world was a radical notion in 1903/08, just as it was around 1611 when the weird editorial principles used for creating the Medicean edition were considered normal. In their quest to find and create Ur-melodies, is it possible that the scholars at Solesmes covertly eradicated the history that led to the variances in those melodies in the first place?

Either way, at the very least it is worth considering more reflectively the long history of "local variance" within the Roman Rite, especially within the plainchant tradition itself. These local customs were nowhere near as "variant" as the Ambrosian Rite, but they nevertheless prove that variety-within-unity has always colored the Roman Rite.

Then it is also worth considering the intellectual framework that led to Pius X's outlook in the first place.

This is the crux of JMO's question, as I understand it. *Shrugs*

Ah: well, there is a more demanding definition of custom in church law: it has to be in effect for 30 years.

To split hairs, that's the definition of when a "custom contrary to the canon law ... acquires the force of law" (c. 26). The very text implies that the definition of "custom" in Church law includes customs which have force of law, and customs which do not have force of law--e.g., customs against the law that are younger than 30 years. There are conditions (ibid.) which can prevent some customs from attaining force of law until 100 years have elapsed. A custom which is not "reasonable" or which is "contrary to the divine law" can never attain the force of law. And any custom which is expressly reprobated by law loses its legal force, regardless of age--but that doesn't mean it stops being a "custom". (c. 24)

Hi DougS

How much have you read about the work that the Benedictine monks did on Gregorian Chant? This is not a snotty question. I am not trying to be a jerk or to intentionally draw you into a fight.

Just curious. You are obviously more well read on the history of their research than than I am. My reading has been of a more general nature into the history of singing, Christopher Page's book and James McKinnon's theories about the creation of the Mass Propers. I have a translation of the Combe and guess it is about time I read it, thanks.

Ordered Bergeron's book the other day. Thanks Charles for posting the link.