There is a certain inconsistency in the documents concerning priority; if Gregorian chant is to have first place, then the real Gregorian propers should be sung, the Graduale Romanum. But these cannot be sung by a congregation, but only a choir (fourth priority). Here, as in other places, rubrical consistency breaks down, and it may be best to follow tradition, i.e., choir singing propers, congregation singing ordinary.

the ideal is that the propers be sung, and that they be sung by the entire congregation.

This is completely unworkable. Congregations cannot sing the authentic Gregorian propers. Even in monasteries, where sometimes the processional chants are sung by the whole community, the gradual and alleluia are sung by a schola.

OK.

I am reposting the GIRM specification here.

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a
similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the
dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the
antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or
in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song
from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the
Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable
liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.55

The four options I am discussing aren't the four options Dr. Marht is speaking about. I see that the four options (numbers 1-4) can apply to any combination of ensembles. In other words, the four ensembles mentioned in the first part of 48 can be applied to the 'performance' of either 1 through 4.

In other words, there is really a heirarchy of options that is actually a list of sixteen.

OPTION 1
1. The antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm for the Roman Gradual sung alternately by the choir and the people
2. The antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm for the Roman Gradual sung alternately by the cantor and the people
3. The antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm for the Roman Gradual sung entirely by the people
4. The antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm for the Roman Gradual sung alternately by the choir alone

OPTION 2
1. The seasonal Psalm of the Simple Gradual sung alternately by the choir and the people
2. The seasonal Psalm of the Simple Gradua sung alternately by the cantor and the people
3. The seasonal Psalm of the Simple Gradua sung entirely by the people
4. The seasonal Psalm of the Simple Gradua sung alternately by the choir alone

etc.

Would this not be the proper application of number 48?

So, if I understand correctly, most parishes will ever only be able to attain option 1 number 4 (such as what Dr. Mahrt is espousing) as congregational participation in the Propers is highly impractical.

Dr. Mahrt: In what other documents does it specifically address the issue of the priority of singing the Propers that would contradict or change this heirarchy?

Francis:

The problem is that your Option 1, Number 1, the Gregorian propers sung from the Roman Gradual, sung alternately by the choir and the people, cannot be sung by a congregation; they require a skilled choir. Even now, many choirs are gradually adding the propers they are able to sing, one by one.

This point is not addressed by the documents, but it is solid tradition: the propers belong to the choir, the ordinary to the congregation. The ordinary are texts which constitute the liturgical action at that moment: e.g., in singing the Credo, the entire liturgy is about professing belief; priest, choir, and congregation join in this as an integral liturgical act. The propers are accompaniments of other liturgical actions, not the action themselves: we do not sing an introit for the sake of singing the text of the introit; we sing it as an accompaniment of the procession into the church and the incensation of the altar, which is the liturgical act at that moment. I have always maintained that it is not the function of the congregation to provide the accompanying music for another act, but to sing those things which are the acts themselves, the ordinary.

Dr. Mahrt:

Point taken, and I wholeheartedly agree. It is unrealistic for the people to sing the Propers (at least at this point in time) as the choir can barely execute it themselves. Our choir does the propers every week (all three), but we are not doing the GC, only a simple english version. This is partly out of 'pastoral sensitivity' to 'stealing away' the hymns from the people, and the demand on the choir to learn new music every week. I almost think it would be better to have 1 or 2 cantors sing the propers. I can pretty much sight read them myself, of course that would be without all the nuances that various schools of thought put forward, but they would be sung!

So then, would you espouse that Option 1, number 4 is the method in line with tradition as "the authentic way" the Introit, Offertory, and Communion should be carried out? If this be the case is there supporting documentation either through historical recording (not audio recordings, but journals, letters, articles, etc.) or other official documents to support this perspective?

(Please bear with me, because I would like to include more supporting information in the book I am getting ready to publish). The first chapter being "Singing the Mass" and the first subtitle dealing with "Singing the Propers". The second subtitle is "Singing the Ordinary". So far, I am using the GIRM as the authoritative source for how we should be singing the Mass, but since it does not follow tradition or earlier practice, it might be a weak argument on its own merit.

MCW

I firmly believe that is what B16 is trying to do when he introduces the HOC. Because there are those who would try to disconnect the tradition as happened with the introduction of the vernacular in the NO, (and this is especially problematic with those who are responsible to create 'new documents' concerning the execution of sacred music, for instance SttL), that it is a corrective measure to reorient the church to give greater respect to and reconnect with tradition (especially with regards to the NO and more importantly the NO with vernacular). He really is good at tying strings together between divergent factions.

miacoyne

You are so right. When one has the proper disposition toward God and Church, unity is the result!

Incantu, I agree with you about the ideal.

Everyone, go and re-read what incantu said.
Then, with that in mind, go and re-read Sacrosanctum Concilium # 14 and following.
Maybe, just maybe, Vatican Two was setting the bar REALLY high!
Child to three co-workers at construction site: "What are you doing?"
Co-worker-1: I am cementing bricks together.
Co-worker-2: I am making a brick wall.
Co-worker-3: I am building a cathedral.

We are in the musical trouble we are in because of centuries of
(roll Homer Simpson soundtrack) "It's too hard"
and the parade of endless concessions occasionally interrupted by a small pooper-scooper detail.

Also, re-read Sacrosanctum Concilium # 117.

Francis, we need the big picture;
first we must look at
the Latin GIRM and its various versions in historical order,
and then afterward look at
the USA-Conference-adaptations and Other-Conference-adaptations.

In other Forum Discussions we have already talked about the above,
and the GIRM "translation" problems.

eft and incantu:

I am researching this for my book. It is a small size booklet, 5" x 7". You can read it in one easy sitting. It is written at the level that the volunteer parish musician can understand.

"See chant.
Chant belongs to Church.
Church loves Chant.
Run, Chant, run!"

(The Baltimore Catechism is compiled in this same easy format, and it still can't be topped.)

The big picture is too much for them to care about. WE have to know the big picture when they come running with questions about 'Why?'. Otherwise, MOST OF THEM DON"T REALLY CARE! They just want to know and do what's right.

So, YOU need to give me the article, "The Big Picture" by eft and incantu so I can put it here:

http://www.RomanCatholicSacredMusic.com/dolr.html

That is why God likens us to sheep. We tend to fall in line and follow the nearest shepherd (or, unfortunately for most, wolf in sheep's clothing). They just want to know and do what's right.

So, the GIRM and tradition are all they need to know going out the gate. Then we just give them JO, Adam B., JT and music workshops, and just enough truth to snuff out 'twisted truth' (otherwise known as deception) wherever it presents itself. There is no stopping truth.

When they want to dig deeper ALL the answers are on the "Directory of Liturgical Resources" which is available by clicking on any page in the eBook.

http://www.RomanCatholicSacredMusic.com/dolr.html

"Ecce ego mitto vos sicut oves in medio luporum estote ergo prudentes sicut serpentes et simplices sicut columbae" Matthew 10:16

Following the directives of eft:

II. The Promotion of Liturgical Instruction and Active Participation

14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. Wherefore the sacred Council has decided to enact as follows:

Actuoso Participatio does not mean the congregation sings the Propers... it means they are engaged in hearing and meditating upon the choir, schola or cantors singing the propers. Do a google on Actuoso Participatio and read the content from Benedict, Marini and Arinze. (This is all in my book, first chapter, Actuoso Participatio : What Does it Mean?)

117. The typical edition of the books of Gregorian chant is to be completed; and a more critical edition is to be prepared of those books already published since the restoration by St. Pius X.

It is desirable also that an edition be prepared containing simpler melodies, for use in small churches.

We are doing this presently. Adam and others. However, that is just a step BACK to the true ideal, the authentic propers of the Roman Gradual.

Charles in CenCA:

Very well put. You truly have a way with artistic words.

Same as I see it.

The human condition continually degrades the liturgy, and the longstanding effort of the Church to 'make it heaven on earth'. In the last 45 years, the Church itself has significantly repressed the task of passing on the oral tradition, (the U.S. is not innocent in the least) and the indult was kind of a death blow, so to speak. It takes a lifetime of hearing and then singing the chant to know, sing and love the chant. That is what tradition and culture IS. Therefore, we are like Israelites wandering through the (spiritual) dessert, once again.

And to top it off, now we have the argument arising from each nationality, cultural niche and personal taste of musical style (the tower of babel?) insisting on a monopoly of local cultural vernacular to the selfish detriment of the single, universal expression (of the GC).

Don't get me wrong. If we weren't as sinful as we are, I think it IS entirely possible for a congregation to sing the Propers. But it would require us to shift our focus and preoccupation away from the internet, sports games, building our own kingdoms (making money and houses and all) and all our selfish leisurely excesses to do so.

Charles, I agree with you mostly- I'd only add that the paradigm or ideal is applicable in both forms of the Roman Rite. It is hard to achieve in either form, and more so in the OF because of pastoral sensibilities and confusion regarding options.

I see it a little like my confessions... gradual improvement, waaaaay slower than I would like, and probably unlikely to be realized this side the veil...
Still, I lean on grace, and press on. :)

If one relies strictly upon the GIRM, the options still contain some contradictions. For the introit, it gives as a first option: "1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting." It is clear that singing the introit is preferable to speaking it, but "the antiphon from the Roman Missal" is given first, even though it has been established that those antiphons in the Roman Missal are only for spoken use; if the introit is to be sung, the text from the Roman Gradual must be used. While it does allow other settings of the text from the Roman Gradual, the first option is for the music of the Roman Gradual itself.

While I agree that one needs to heed the order of priority given in the GIRM, the problems with this suggest that these priorities cannot be taken absolutely strictly. I would say that in the context of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, two general priorities are clear: the priority of the sung form over the spoken, and the priority of Gregorian chant over other musical settings. Further, when it comes to Gregorian chant, the priority of the authentic Gregorian melodies over such adaptations as psalm tones. As Charles rightly says, I am not opposed to psalm tones or simple propers, when they represent the extent that a choir can master them. But if a choir can master them, the authentic Gregorian propers should be used. This goes for the gradual and alleluia as well.

If there are members of the congregation who have musical ability , desire and energy to sing Propers after singing the "Responses' and Ordinaries', why not encourage them to join the choir? These days there aren't much restrictions to join the choir. Maybe many people don't join the choir, because singing in the choir is not much different from singing from the pews?

I believe it is a good step to have a simple vernacular Propers so the congregation can join, there are problems in 'reality'; the amount of singing and the musical level as well as watering down the role of the 'choir' If everything is sung by the congregation, what does the choir or schola do? Just to perform a polyphony or motet that is inserted as an extra in the liturgy? If the congregation singing everything is so important, they might just spread out and sing with the congregation from the pews.
Also the music of the liturgy has to be all simplified as much as they can so everyone can sing everything. Propers are mainly from the Scriptures, and the congregation listen to the 'readings.' So why not help the congregation listen to the Word of God that is sung beautifully in peace? (If the congregation really wants to sing Propers, there is RP.)

But the good news is that there are various vernacular Propers now that musicians can choose from according to the ability and the needs of the parish to restore Propers. For some parishes who are not used to them and hard to get away from the congregation singing at the entrance, the simple vernacular Propers alternating with the choir maybe a realistic step to the ideal of restoring GR Propers.

In the hands of the wise music directors who understand the liturgy thoroughly and loves the tradition of Latin rite we inherited, certain level of variety can be very fruitful, but often times in modern liturgy abuse has become somewhat common, such as variety for the sake of variety, promoting some people's taste, vocalizing is better than internal no matter what and so on. One thing people like about going to Traditional Mass is that they feel comfort from the security that they don't encounter much those 'surprises' you may encounter in OF that comes from so many options and their various interpretations. Variety in liturgy should be used much wisely with clear goal in mind, helping people focus on God, especially in OF in our time. It seems that sadly many have forgotten that the more we focus on God, the more we receive God's grace in the liturgy, instead of focusing on ourselves and tastes, and that helps us to live more holy everyday.

Dr. Mahrt is correct. While congregations MAY have sung parts of the psalm, by the Ordo Romanus primus (early eighth century, though some liturgiologists believe most of the form to date to the early seventh century) the schola sang all the propers (cf. Jungmann, Fortescue, et al.). For a very great number of years, that's how it remained. Tradition, therefore, would seem to prefer only the choir singing the propers. I hope that answers your question.

Liam, which ritual books are you referring to? GIRM?

Liam. Problem is, that is the thinking that put us in the predicament we are in now. When you don't apply the HOC, you get the next whim, the next spin, and the next novelty (even if it is with good intentions). I just finished composing a novel 'new mass', my missa solemnis. What makes it novel? Not the music! It's the
text. It uses the brand new 3rd Edtion of the Missal. Why did I succumb to novelty? Because I am hoping to create something that validates my existence that will utilized in the Church. Is it a good idea? Not really. They are already discussing the 4th Edition. Fortunately, I composed it so that it is fixed in the timeless Latin. (see missa solemnis on this forum somewhere). We all thought the way you did on Two books over the last forty years... the GIRM and the most recent document from the US Bishops comcerning liturgy. As far as I see it, they throw out the old one (american documents) because they can be treated just like the popular music; a novelty that hits the charts with hopes of seeing how long it will last. Did that bring about the reform? Did that bring about unity? Did that bring a new height to the cause of sacred music? No, this has been the 'Smoke' and the mirrors that Fr. Z's post talks about above. Truth is, we all like sheep have been led and gone astray, and we might not find our way back without Jesus personally showing up to rescue us. Maranatha.

The HOC is not a solvent with one solution.

You all thought the way I did? Well, I'd like to see how often what I suggested here was put into practice and for how long. What I suggest would significantly change the facts on the ground in most parishes, yet you treat it with disdain as smoke and mirrors.

I am not astray on this point.

Truth is, we all like sheep have been led and gone astray, and we might not find our way back without Jesus personally showing up to rescue us. Maranatha.
I hate to be a prat about the reasoning here, Francis, but there comes a point where the figurative speech, with which I'm too well acquainted, at which we flatter ourselves with vainglorious speech. To whit, I don't think a one of us will have a shred of concern about what the GIRM or any other book on earth states at the Parousia. More pressing issues I would think will occupy our beings. And from the other perspective, Jesus personally "shows up and rescue(s) us" at every Mass sung and heard daily and each Lord's Day.
I know this admonition is unwarranted and likely unwelcomed. But it needs to be asked occasionally whether we conflate the parts and parcels of the "source and summit of our being" into becoming "predicaments" and ideological battlegrounds. I'd offer that we measure our rhetoric against the predicaments faced by innocent souls caught between combating factions in a civil war, be it Libya, Sudan, Somalia, or those of the Copts in Egypt or Catholics at Mass in India or Iraq, the rescue workers in Christchurch and any souls left alive in the rubble, and so forth.
We praise, we remember and honor the covenant, we pray, we receive Him, and then we go forth to witness and serve.
Elemental, and we do our best at it.

Yes, Charles. Sometimes I just get fed up with the whole mess and just pray for the second coming. Sorry. Very selfish of me. On with the battle! (Let's see, where did I put my crucifix and rosary)

...and, yes, you are very good at the figurative speech thing... after all, a figure is worth a thousand words. (how did you like my moon-bouncer?) : - )

Sorry, Liam. My fault. Even my own creative innovations and novelties become a source of consternation as a result of the epiphany I underwent at the Colloquium... I do not mean to project it on you too.

As for praxis, it may have alway been a bit wobbly here or there, but at it's core, it still had an axis; in the last forty years the liturgy has by comparison been completely shoved off its orbit.

Hence why I will continually try to stick with Latin and Polyphony. It is better for my conscience that way, makes me useful for the future Church if and when they close the amusements, and get back to rotating around the Sun.

I don't agree with the unpalpable axis concept. How can one prove it? I strongly maintain that we went off orbit with the introduction of the NO. In the parish I was in as a boy, I learned and experienced the liturgy in Latin. It was solidly grounded. The music was less so, as we used the St. Gregory Hymnal, so although we sang Latin, we were not singing the GC. So on the axis of tradition and Latin, even in the early 60's we were most definitly spinning.

I totally agree with you on the HOC. One cannot just "jump tracks". No one will be on the train. That is why the Pope is slowly throwing the switch tracks, and carefully keeping anyone from falling off the train. And, in fact, he is also laying new tracks rejoining rails that got entirely disconnected as we are all watching.

He leads by example rather than by mandate. Truth and beauty do not need a convincing argument. They simply need to be presented and then it is gladly embraced by those who seek truth and beauty. And they become especially attractive when you have been wandering around in the pits of ugliness and falsehood for your entire life.

FNJ

We do hymns AND propers... in English... without verses... I often designate the Introit to a subserviant position to the "opening hymn", sometimes as including it as a prelude, sometimes not doing it all. It is incredible (and diabolical) that the Church is prevented from doing its own rites. "How long' O Lord, how long."

Having a person standing in front of the congregation indicating when to sing is (I was going to say an abomination....but...) is wrong.

I suggest throwing the term nimbus out to them and see what comes back.

Going back to more hours of Finale.