Omitting Options
-
In another thread, the suggestion that an option can be omitted reminded me of something that occurred to me awhile back. The only reason a hymn or song can replace the perscribed texts found in The Roman Missal, the Roman Gradual or the Simple Gradual is if no one leading the liturgy is capable of performing the required music. If some are capable, it would seem that they would be required to. However, no one is ever required to sing anything but the prescribed texts as there is always the possibility of no singing.If there is no singing at the entrance, the antiphon in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector; otherwise, it is recited by the priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation.
In my humble opinion, all options other than singing the prescribed texts or reciting the antiphon in the Missal should never be exercised and, therefore, removed from the GIRM.
Obviously, a sudden and drastic change in this direction would not go over well, especially with many of the clergy. Hence, we should work patiently like the early Christians did in eliminating their liturgical problems, such as the Love Feast described by St. Paul in 1 Corinthians 11:20-22. This flawed liturgy was eventually eliminated, but it was more than a couple centuries after the death of St. Paul. Thus, we may all have been dead for a couple centuries before the propers are universally restored to the Mass, but like St. Paul, we must do our part and leave the rest to God. -
The only reason a hymn or song can replace the perscribed texts found in The Roman Missal, the Roman Gradual or the Simple Gradual is if no one leading the liturgy is capable of performing the required music.
I'm not sure this is a well-founded statement.
-
I'm not sure the option of replacing the prescribed texts of the Mass with other texts is well-founded as it seems to be a rupture with many centuries of tradition. Here are a couple more recent texts that show this:
De musica sacra et sacra liturgia14. a) In sung Masses only Latin is to be used. This applies not only to the celebrant, and his ministers, but also to the choir or congregation.
"However, popular vernacular hymns may be sung at the solemn Eucharistic Sacrifice (sung Masses), after the liturgical texts have been sung in Latin, in those places where such a centenary or immemorial custom has obtained. Local ordinaries may permit the continuation of this custom 'if they judge that it cannot prudently be discontinued because of the circumstances of the locality or the people' (cf. canon 5)" (Musicæ sacræ disciplina: AAS 48 [1956] 16-17).
Consilium’s official journal Notitiae 5 [1969] p. 406.That rule has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something”, no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing during Mass.
Given the conditions of when hymns were permitted in the past, and the intention of the Consilium set up by Pope Paul VI to implement Sacrosanctum Concilium, I believe some of the presents options in the GIRM do not conform to the mind of the Chruch. -
I love that exhortation in Notitiae, but it does not undo the permissions long given, acknowledged in the Instruction De musica sacra and confirmed in Musicam sacram. It doesn't outrank those documents. Legally, it's just an exhortation.
Given the gaps between what SC called for and what the Consilium implemented, it's hard to make claims that the latter represented the mind of the Church in a reliable way.
-
None of these documents suggest that the texts of the Mass could optionally be replace with some other texts as the GIRM suggests. They all confirm that when a hymn or song is added to the Mass, it is an addition that comes after one of the Propers. To my knowledge, there is no binding document before 1969 (I assume this date as the earliest GIRM I've seen is the 1975 one) that indicates that the text of the Mass can be replace with another text.
-
Later legislation modifies previous legislation, even more when so specific, so the permissions in the GIRM, which do not indicate any requirement of the kind you suggest, stand free of them, as it were. I would not go running around suggesting people are doing something illicit when they are not, unless and until competent authority specifically rules they are. Liturgical musicians should play music, not lawyer; we invariably lose when we do the latter, tempting as it so obviously is to many.
-
It seems that every few months or so, someone suggests we should be following some older document and its requirements. While those old documents contain many things I would prefer, they have been superseded. GIRM is the current legislation, and the conference of bishops does have the authority to make such legislation. As Liam states, we are musicians, not lawyers.
-
There is no part of the mass that is required to be sung. In fact, the Gospel Alleluia is not done if it is not sung.s if no one leading the liturgy is capable of performing the required music. If some are capable, it would seem that they would be required to. However, no one is ever required to sing anything but the prescribed texts as there is always the possibility of no singing.
Catholics in the USA vote with their closed mouths every Sunday about whether or not they feel that Active Participation by song is a requirement.
Having seen the sinful act of eating meat on Fridays suddenly become not a sin, possibly they remain hopeful, hopeful that will not be expected to sing.
It's really time to move on, drop congregational singing except for the responses, since they are about the only thing the majority of Catholics might sing.
As said above sudden and drastic change does not go over well.
My theological question is this: Since we did penance if we ate meat on Fridays and suddenly and drastically it was no longer a sin, then...do we get applied automatic credit for future sins since we have already paid for them.
Pay it forward? -
It's really time to move on, drop congregational singing except for the responses, since they are about the only thing the majority of Catholics might sing.
Give the people something worth singing, and they will sing full throttle; otherwise, it is better not to sing at all.
First of all, as you say, I would prefer the responses to be sung. I go, from time to time, to a Maronite Catholic parish where some of the same songs from the American Latin Church are used. I tend to ignore and tolerate it because the Qurbono (Divine Liturgy) in the Maronite Catholic Church is sung by the priest and the faithful, thus, in a sense, "beautifying", if you will, the same songs I would otherwise detest in the Latin Church.Thanked by 1Andrew Motyka -
The GIRM is the current legislation and must be followed. However, it does leave the option for observing the older practices that I had referred to. The GIRM has changed in a number of ways over the last 44 years, so I believe that further changes will be made that will be more consistent with our tradition. Whether or not this happens in my life time is another story.
Since I only pretend to be a musician, I guess that it's alright if I also pretend to be a lawyer. -
Making an argument about a rule is on the easy side: all one needs to do is find a text expressing the rule, and there you are: you have an argument (whether it's complete is another matter).
Making an argument about an exception to such a rule is similarly straightforward: find a text specifying the exception, and there you have an argument.
But making a claim about an absence of exceptions is hard. There are so many ways exceptions can be granted, and it seems nigh impossible to prove that none was ever granted!
-
I am not suggesting anything as being illicit here. I am just suggesting that the GIRM can be interpreted as to giving options in order of precedence, and gives no indication that options that you do not agree with must be exercised. Hence if something optional appears, with good reason, to be a rupture with tradition, that option is not required to be taken.
Another example of this is Communion in the hand. Currently, it is not illicit to receive Communion in the hand if the necessary prerequisites have been fulfilled. However, one of those prerequisites is that the ordained minister distributing Communion will permit you to receive Communion in the hand. (If there is more than one ordained minister, I'm not sure if the individual ministers have the option, or defer to the higher ranking minister.) On the other hand, no one, including the pope, can require you to receive Communion in the hand. Since Communion on the tong is the norm, it is always permitted.
This is just an example of how a non-lawyer, such as myself, sees things. However, just as my musical opinion doesn't mean too much as I'm not really a musician, my legal opinion doesn't mean too much either.
I apologize if this is not the best venue to discuss such topics. Please tell me if this is so, in which case, I'll only ask for musical help and help in understanding current legislation. -
"It's really time to move on, drop congregational singing except for the responses, since they are about the only thing the majority of Catholics might sing."
I assume Noel, that you've bravely implemented this in your own parish, yes? How was it received?
I will say that, though I treasure active and vocal participation (participation may be active without being vocal and vocal without being active!), I've often felt that perhaps, to a very small extent, the "Low Mass" should be brought back. Have one Mass, the first one of Sunday, with no music whatsoever. Perhaps one more with very minimal use of hymnody - one hymn after Mass, maybe - with the rest of the music provided by the organ and/or choir. However, the norm ought to remain vocal participation in the music on the part of the congregation. I just think we ought to give people access to legitimate options as we can. -
It is worth remembering, when we talk about such things as "a rupture with many centuries of tradition," that at no point prior to the Council did the majority of Masses, even of Masses with music, feature the sung propers. Rather, the rupture lies in the idea we nowadays hear expressed that "hymns have no place at Mass." Now, that may be a good rupture -- and some ruptures are good -- but it nevertheless represents a substantial change in longstanding practice.
Would it be enough if the priest quietly recited the proper to himself while the congregation sang Gather Us In? That would be more in keeping with tradition, I'm afraid.Thanked by 1Gavin -
Pardon me if I misunderstood you, Russell, but I took this to be a contention about what is permitted under law:The only reason a hymn or song can replace the perscribed texts found in The Roman Missal, the Roman Gradual or the Simple Gradual is if no one leading the liturgy is capable of performing the required music.
But if you didn't mean it that way, okay.
Thanked by 1Liam -
If one cannot try to be brave, one should work in a protestant church.
Attempts to have one simple early Sunday Mass without a cantor or singing was one of the reasons for my departure from the last parish, along with the unpardonable sin of encouraging singers NOT FROM THE PARISH join the choir.
The foolish and stupid thinking that demands a cantor should sing the psalm at every mass lowers the overall musicianship by sticking people up there who should not be singing and also taking singers who should be in the choir and having them say, "I'll cantor at 8 but I won't be in the choir that day. One Mass is enough."
Time to crawl back in the barrel and head for the falls.... -
The notion of intentional "cantors" is, documented or not, BS. Two or three gathered is how it goes in all things "Christ-present."
I'm still dealing a bit with this forlorn mentality with certain personnel. Arggghh.
If "you're so vain, you prob'ly think this song is about you...", rent an arena, put up some fliers, and see how many lighters are lifted to and fro at your encore song.
Get the FACP in there, back the truck up. -
I'm so tired of options. But that could be because I'm a high soprano and I've sung too many high notes in my lifetime, rendering me easily confused.
How about as a general rule: if the option doesn't fit, you must omit?
Ok, lame. I couldn't resist. Probably half of the readers here are too young to remember the OJ trial. The other half could care less about CA. Which leaves me, and Melo, and Greg P. Hopefully you guys get a chuckle. -
Hey, MACW, don't forget our resident genius up in Sacto, Jeffrey M! and the redoubtable Jeff Culbreath in Chico, Dr. Rudy D in Oaktown, and Sam/Keyes in Newark!
-
Too true, Musica Sacra Pater o' mine.
We might even get a wry grin out of Prof. Mahrt on this one! -
at no point prior to the Council did the majority of Masses, even of Masses with music, feature the sung propers.
Really? You can prove this? -
Well... I'm sure at SOME point...
-
MACW, you know...I did think of that, and I felt bad for not going back and editing it yet again.
Awry grin.
Pr. Mahrt, You know I regard you as DA MAN! -
From another site, speaking, I believe, about the 1950's:My first issue is the low Mass / high Mass / solemn high Mass hierarchy, and the concern deals with money.
To fulfill the obligation of a high Mass stipend ($5.00), the Mass ordinaries and propers required they be sung.
Otherwise, an unsung Mass fell into the category of a low Mass ($2.00)—nothing sung.
Almost all daily masses up until the 1960's were High Masses for this reason. Rossini's Propers were popular for this reason, since few village organist/singers (almost always one person) did not have the training or time to learn and sing the chant propers. Also, roughly a third of the time the priest would walk out with black vestments and we dropped that days music on the bench and sang the Requiem Mass with complete Dies Irae, so spending time learning Gregorian Propers that we might never sing?
Paying the organist/singer $1 a Mass doubled the priest's income. Organist/singers were valued members of the staff and rarely were treated like dirt, for losing that person could mean dropping the priest's stipend income from daily Masses from $1,200 to $600. $1,200 when a new Cadillac, which some pastors drove, cost $2761.
I was able to buy a new Baldwin Hamilton Studio piano from the dollars I earned for those Masses, while I was still in high school, which means I sang more than 700 of them. Mrs. Kuniewicz did the 8:00 and played the Sunday Masses, too. -
Sometimes you can fiddle with things to your advantage.
For the Solemnity of the Annunciation I used:
SEP Introit
Chant Ordinary (chants drawn from different masses and ad lib chants)
Offertory: "The Angel Gabriel from Heaven Came"
Communion: SEP, then Arcadelt Ave Maria
Recessional: Marian Antiphon then Organ Postlude
The Arcadelt Ave Maria would have been more correct for the offertory, but was far too short (we were using incense), so I allocated that place to the Hymn, which was basically a paraphrase of the Gospel read that day, and then had the Ave Maria as a sort of "Thanksgiving Motet". Immediately after the Communion Chant from the SEP.
I think that this slight shuffling was more in line with the intention of the church when the clause "et alius cantus aptus" was included in the documents. -
Just a question: Was it the case in the Tridentine Mass that the propers from the preceding Sunday would generally be sung? (Obviously there are exceptions to this rule).
-
Isn't that still the case, when there is no particular feast (which is more frequent in the OF than the EF), that the propers of the preceding Sunday were sung?
I sang in the cathedral choir in Seattle from 1961-63; we always sang all the Gregorian propers out, gradual, alleluia, everything. for the Sunday Mass.
One summer, as a substitute, I sang for all the weekday morning high Masses. The propers were always sung; I cannot remember how, but I don't have any recollection of any book of Rossini propers, so I suppose I was singing the Gregorian propers.
-
at no point prior to the Council did the majority of Masses, even of Masses with music, feature the sung propers.
Really? You can prove this? -
@dad29 -- One would have to consider the relative proportions of high Masses and low Masses, and then consider what was being sung at Masses with music.Thanked by 1chonak
-
Mark, my Firefox doesn't like your link "what was being sung."
So happens I was around during the period you mention, and at the Missa Cantata, the Propers WERE sung. At "Low Masses," they were not--but neither was the Ordinary.
Can you provide a bit more from the link, like its stats? -
It is not just Firefox. IE 10 doesn't like that link, either. It has problems with the security certificate.
-
In regard to the relative frequency of High Mass and chanting of the proper of the Mass, comprehensive data are a little spotty for the US. William Whitehouse's dissertation refers to two surveys in the early 1950's, one by Paul Hume (see Catholic Church Music), and the other by Rev. Cletus P. Madsen, under the auspices of the National Catholic Music Educators Association (which I haven't seen). Thomas Day in Why Catholics Can't Sing also discusses this. These sources suggest that about half of US parishes in the 1950s did not celebrate a High Mass on Sunday, having instead low Mas with Hymns for the principal Mass. Those parishes that did have High Mass were usually connected to a school, and the proper of the Mass was sung by a children's choir with Rossini propers. Only about 10% of parishes had High Mass on Sunday with an adult choir. There were still many situations where sung propers were omitted from High Mass, but less so than earlier in the 20th cent. Other information presented by Whitehouse suggests that in the wake of the Instruction, De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, High Mass was even further abandoned in favor of low Mass with hymns.
-
In regard to the relative frequency of High Mass and chanting of the proper of the Mass, comprehensive data are a little spotty for the US. William Whitehouse's dissertation refers to two surveys in the early 1950's, one by Paul Hume (see Catholic Church Music), and the other by Rev. Cletus P. Madsen, under the auspices of the National Catholic Music Educators Association (which I haven't seen). Thomas Day in Why Catholics Can't Sing also discusses this. These sources suggest that about half of US parishes in the 1950s did not celebrate a High Mass on Sunday, having instead low Mas with Hymns for the principal Mass. Those parishes that did have High Mass were usually connected to a school, and the proper of the Mass was sung by a children's choir with Rossini propers. Only about 10% of parishes had High Mass on Sunday with an adult choir. There were still many situations where sung propers were omitted from High Mass, but less so than earlier in the 20th cent. Other information presented by Whitehouse suggests that in the wake of the Instruction, De musica sacra et sacra liturgia, High Mass was even further abandoned in favor of low Mass with hymns.
This is the context in which liturgical reform was being made with the hope to eventually move away from the low-mass with hymns to something more resembling the high mass.
I see the old problem being that with low mass, just about anything could be sung and it may or may not even have any relevance to the liturgy being celebrated that day. It seems pretty clear to me that "et alius cantus aptus" was intended that a liturgically relevant song be used. Most recently, "Gabriel's Message" (The angel Gabriel from Heaven came..." being an example of a Hymn which is specific to a particular feast (or at least even in scripture). Yes, I am aware that it is often listed as a "Christmas Carol", and it is often a part of an Advent Carols Liturgy.
Some argue that it is a compromise and what should really happen is that the Choir sings the prescribed chant and then lets the congregation sing an appropriate hymn, but the reality of the matter is that few churches have a real "choir", and most have, at best, someone who plays the "organ" and a small group of people who lead singing (and often don't/can't read music). -
Well, then, "Survey Says...."!!
That '10%' number (adult choir, Missa Cantata) may have been the case nationwide, but I suspect that the Archdiocese of Milwaukee's number was far higher (at least in the city and its near suburbs.) That might have held in any larger metropolitan area.
However--when one gets to "country" parishes--the number of choirs worthy of the name does drop off significantly, so I can reconcile the statistics a bit better.
As to the intention of the reform as outlined by Harley (above)--hmmmmm.
My organ teacher was a nationally-known liturgical figure, and she was promoting the "Our Parish Prays and Sings" heavily. That included a few Gregorian Ordinaries and lotsa hymns--but no propers. This was in the early/mid '60's. -
Sr. Theophane?
-
My parish had "Our Parish Prays and Sings," and the other two churches in town had "The People's Mass Book." Those were our two hymnal choices in those days. Everyone stopped using the St. Gregory and St. Basil hymnals almost overnight.
-
"Most recently, "Gabriel's Message" (The angel Gabriel from Heaven came..." being an example of a Hymn which is specific to a particular feast (or at least even in scripture). Yes, I am aware that it is often listed as a "Christmas Carol", and it is often a part of an Advent Carols Liturgy."
Annunciation themes have always been appropriate for Advent. The earliest commemoration of the Annunciation was in Advent, especially the fourth Sunday, whose proper was then sometimes used for the feast when it was March 25.
-
That's very interesting, Prof. Mahrt. I've often wondered why the Offertory and Communion of Advent IV are so explicitly Marian, and not on a feast of hers.
That particular Offertory is a crown jewel.
Would you happen to know what all the Propers were when Annunciation was celebrated on Advent IV?
The Annunciation is a favorite feast of mine. It's so often overlooked, considering it falls in Lent most years. Understandable, but a bit of a bummer.
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