The whole point of having the various "options" for liturgical music is to allow us to sing according the skill and ability of the available people.

The problem is that people only aim for the very minimum standard in church music. about 12 months ago I went to a wedding where the responsorial psalm, alleluia, and ordinary were all said, but then a soloist with an organist sang at the entrance, offertory, communion, signing of the register and the recessional.

Most people really have no clue when it comes to church music, which is why I am thankful for things such as this forum, the CMAA, the SEP, Chabanel Psalms, and so many other resources which are now available. This sort of grass-roots revival of church music would not be possible without the internet, giving us the ability to create and publish music directly from composer to musician.

One thing that has surprised me greatly about this thread is that there seems to be a genuine willingness, on the part of some, to uphold a hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity with regard to the Roman Rite, which has always been a chanted rite with Gregorian melodies and psalm tones, in spite of whatever regional aberrations might have crept in, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries (the situation to which Pius X was addressing himself, and then, of course, Vatican II). If we want the hermeneutic of reform in continuity with the one Church, that means taking very seriously the structure, texts, and music of the rite as it has come down to us at the eve of the Second Vatican Council and in its non-abusive manifestations after the Council. Not just as an ideal, or as a point of departure, but as a living center, a realistic paradigm, a gift and a task.

Hence, fully admitting that it's wonderful and useful to have such a variety of good and great sacred music at our disposal, in many languages and with many acceptable texts (not to mention the vast world of instrumental music), would it not be strange if the unity and universality of the Roman Rite did not, each and every time, clearly emerge out of the very ceremonies and chants of the liturgy, and if the rich resources of music did not serve to augment and ornament that rite? This does not necessarily mean a predominant, much less exclusive, use of the Graduale Romanum, but it does suggest that not singing the Propers and the Ordinary regularly to chant melodies, and at least sometimes in Latin (say, at the highest feasts of the year), would definitely be a sign of a hermeneutic of rupture and discontinuity. Can that really be denied?

Yes, there's plenty of work to be done on the ground level, in ongoing catechesis, musical training, and the winning of good will; and, as people are often quick to say, we mustn't let the best be the enemy of the good. However, there is a forgotten truth in the contrary: let not the good become the enemy of the best, as I explored in this piece at NLM back in September:
http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2013/08/dont-let-best-be-enemy-of-good.html

It isn't a prejudice. It's my general observation having spent over 10 years doing music on suburban parishes. As I mentioned in the very same paragraph, it is often at the stage where the ordinary is said and the four songs are sung/played often having little to no relevance to the liturgy.

Perhaps I came across as unsupportive of the SEP. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, it was myself who pushed for the SEP to became the default music for the annual ACSA conferences.

My comments about the minimum standard were reflective of the situation im parishes whoch serve up 4 hymn sandwiches. In the parish where I have just taken up post as assistant organist, the Sunday evening choir has sung the exact same 4 hymns throughout the year only punctuated with Christmas Carols at the end of the year.

hartleymartin writes:

In the parish where I have just taken up post as assistant organist, the Sunday evening choir has sung the exact same 4 hymns throughout the year only punctuated with Christmas Carols at the end of the year.

Boy, I was surprised to hear the same hymns 3 or 4 weeks in a row at one parish!

It seems to me that "singing the same hymn" is not in itself inappropriate or untraditional. The same seasonal psalm can be chosen at least for many Sundays in a row, exactly to encourage participation. The one hymn that really belongs in the Mass is sung every Sunday except in Lent and Easter. The hymn sung at Compline is the same every day, and the hymns sung at ferial Lauds and at Vespers are the same every week. (Not to mention Iste confessor twice on easily half the feasts...!)

Of course the problem with repeating other hymns at Mass is that those are already in place of the proper antiphons, and repetition in this situation takes us even further from the traditional warp and weft of proper and ordinary.

"Latin and English share the same sounds..." is a reason in favor of English, but it doesn't provide a reason for vernaculars in general.

I suppose there are some faithful who want English to extend its cultural empire-building and become the worldwide language of the Church too.

FYI, most byzantine rite churches dont even use propers at all. Or if at least we can say that in many cases what usually remains of their proper today, their troparia and kontakia or so simple and short that its easy to miss them. In the 17th century they had their own equivalent of a "graduale romanum" but somehow in the course of 4 centuries it became forgotten, abandoned or overly simplified, yet the ordinary remained in use continuously as it is today. Today the byzantine rite remains in need of reinvigoration through having it's historic propers and their melodies published again for use in parishes. It is truly a deficiency with the modern form that this rite typically takes, which is otherwise close to perfect.

The average "divine 'eucharistic' liturgy" consists mainly of a more complex equivalent to the "ordinary of the mass" and very little "proper". Ironically the parts of their "mass ordinary" are ironically often referred to as hymns and found in a book sometimes termed a "hymnal".

But this folks is by no means equivalent to your average OCP hymnal.


;-) hehehehehe...

Nevertheless, this is the type of deliciously tasty hymn sandwich that 250,000,000 people find richly edifying. All it could use is more emphasis on the proper.

Ralph (et alia),
The position that Latin used to be the vernacular, therefore Roman liturgy should be in the vernacular is a myth that has been exploded many times, most recently (and definitively) by Fr. U. Michael Lang in his superb book The Voice of the Church at Prayer (Ignatius Press). Liturgical Latin has always been a high, sacral register, and it was not long before it escaped the complete comprehension of the common man. Nevertheless, the fixity of the liturgy guaranteed a widespread understanding of what was happening in it -- far better, one suspects, that today's multitudes who, despite hearing the liturgy in the vernacular, do not seem to know the ABC's of their catechism or even that the Mass is the representation of the holy sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. And we can also see throughout history the use of ancient ("dead") languages in Eastern Christendom, as well, even though there has been a greater tendency in the East to use the current vernacular.
Beyond this, there is the simple fact that Pope Pius XII taught in Mediator Dei that the Holy Spirit has providentially governed the development of the liturgy of the Church, and that the use of Latin was part of this providential design. In other words, it was not, and cannot be held to have been, an error in any way, shape, or form. This teaching can also be found in other popes, such as Bd. John XXIII. It would be very difficult to find a way to squirm out of it.
The Second Vatican Council therefore suggested a wise middle course: the parts of the liturgy that are always or nearly always the same, such as the Ordinary and the Canon, should remain in Latin and the people should learn these parts in Latin, while the parts that change, such as the daily prayers and readings, could be in the vernacular. Unfortunately, the Council was ignored on this point, and we are reaping catastrophe and confusion today.

The position that Latin used to be the vernacular, therefore Roman liturgy should be in the vernacular is a myth . . . . Liturgical Latin has always been a high, sacral register, . . .

It was in a high register of the vernacular, in the same way that a presidential proclamation or a William Jennings Bryan speech is in a high register of its respective vernacular. As to its being a sacral register, most scholars would say it has more in common with contemporary legal Latin than religious Latin.

... and it was not long before it escaped the complete comprehension of the common man.

What's "not long"? Even if one were talking about a scant 250 years, while that might not look like "long" at the remove of nearly two thousand, it's the age of the United States from the French and Indian War to today. Not exactly a flash in the pan, is it?

Beyond this, there is the simple fact that Pope Pius XII taught in Mediator Dei that . . . the use of Latin was part of this providential design.

I don't recall seeing that in Mediator Dei.

If the liturgical language moves out of the comprehension of the faithful, then it's Gnosticism. There's a learning curve about liturgy, certainly, but Christians don't have secrets. We have mysteries.

I agree with ProfKwasniewski that the Holy Spirit preserved latin for important reasons. Though I wouldn't think that the Holy Spirit desires to preserve latin to be used at all times exclusively for the entire church in the entire world.

In theory, could not english also be an unchanging liturgical language equal to latin within a particular culture thousands of miles from Italy?

English such as this:

22 So he ate and was filled, and the beloved one kicked; *
He waxed fat; he grew thick; he grew broad;
23 and he forsook God Who made him, *
and departed from God his Saviour.
24 They provoked Me with strange gods,
and vexed Me with their abominations.

25 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; *
to gods whom they knew not,
26 That were new and newly come up, *
of whom their fathers knew not.
27 The God that begat thee thou hast forsaken, *
and hast forgotten the Lord that created thee.

28 And the Lord saw it, and was jealous, *
and was provoked to wrath by His sons and daughters.
29 And He said, I will turn My face from them, *
and I will show what their end shall be;
30 For it is a (perverse) froward generation, *
children in whom is no faith.

31 They have provoked Me with that which is not God; *
they have angered me with their vanities;
32 And I will move them to jealousy by those who are not a nation; *
with a foolish nation will I provoke them.
33 For a fire is kindled in Mine anger, *
and shall burn unto the lowest hell;
________________________________________________________
Incrassátus est diléctus et recalcitrávit: * incrassátus impinguátus dilatátus.
Derelíquit Deum factórem suum : * et recéssit a Deo salutári suo.
Provocavérunt eum in diis aliénis : * et in abominatiónibus ad iracúndiam concitavérunt.

Immolavérunt demóniis et non Deo : * diis quos ignorábant.
Novi recentésque venérunt : * quos non coluérunt patres eórum.
Deum qui te génuit dereliquísti : * et oblítus es Dómini Creatóris tui.

Vidit Dóminus et ad Vidit Dóminus et ad iracúndiam concitátus est : *
quia provocavérunt eum fílii sui et fílie.
Et ait Abscóndam fáciem meam ab eis : * et considerábo novíssima eórum.
Generátio enim pervérsa est : * et infidéles fílii.

Ipsi me provocavérunt in eo qui non erat deus : * et irritavérunt in vanitátibus suis.
Et ego provocábo eos in eo qui non est pópulus : * et in gente stulta irritábo illos.
Ignis succénsus est in furóre meo : * et ardébit usque ad inférni novíssima.

Are these not equally elegant and equally orthodox texts?

Here are the parts of Mediator Dei I was thinking of:

60. The use of the Latin language, customary in a considerable portion of the Church, is a manifest and beautiful sign of unity, as well as an effective antidote for any corruption of doctrinal truth. In spite of this, the use of the mother tongue in connection with several of the rites may be of much advantage to the people. But the Apostolic See alone is empowered to grant this permission. It is forbidden, therefore, to take any action whatever of this nature without having requested and obtained such consent, since the sacred liturgy, as We have said, is entirely subject to the discretion and approval of the Holy See.

61. The same reasoning holds in the case of some persons who are bent on the restoration of all the ancient rites and ceremonies indiscriminately. The liturgy of the early ages is most certainly worthy of all veneration. But ancient usage must not be esteemed more suitable and proper, either in its own right or in its significance for later times and new situations, on the simple ground that it carries the savor and aroma of antiquity. The more recent liturgical rites likewise deserve reverence and respect. They, too, owe their inspiration to the Holy Spirit, who assists the Church in every age even to the consummation of the world. They are equally the resources used by the majestic Spouse of Jesus Christ to promote and procure the sanctity of man.

More potent still are the words of Bd. John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia of February 22, 1962 (note that date!):

Thus the "knowledge and use of this language," so intimately bound up with the Church's life, "is important not so much on cultural or literary grounds, as for religious reasons." These are the words of Our Predecessor Pius XI, who conducted a scientific inquiry into this whole subject, and indicated three qualities of the Latin language which harmonize to a remarkable degree with the Church's nature. "For the Church, precisely because it embraces all nations and is destined to endure to the end of time ... of its very nature requires a language which is universal, immutable, and non-vernacular."

Furthermore, the Church's language must be not only universal but also immutable. Modern languages are liable to change, and no single one of them is superior to the others in authority. Thus if the truths of the Catholic Church were entrusted to an unspecified number of them, the meaning of these truths, varied as they are, would not be manifested to everyone with sufficient clarity and precision. There would, moreover, be no language which could serve as a common and constant norm by which to gauge the exact meaning of other renderings.

But Latin is indeed such a language. It is set and unchanging. it has long since ceased to be affected by those alterations in the meaning of words which are the normal result of daily, popular use. Certain Latin words, it is true, acquired new meanings as Christian teaching developed and needed to be explained and defended, but these new meanings have long since become accepted and firmly established.

Finally, the Catholic Church has a dignity far surpassing that of every merely human society, for it was founded by Christ the Lord. It is altogether fitting, therefore, that the language it uses should be noble, majestic, and non-vernacular.

In addition, the Latin language "can be called truly catholic." It has been consecrated through constant use by the Apostolic See, the mother and teacher of all Churches, and must be esteemed "a treasure ... of incomparable worth." It is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity and the documents of the Church's teaching. It is also a most effective bond, binding the Church of today with that of the past and of the future in wonderful continuity.
(fulltext at http://www.adoremus.org/VeterumSapientia.html#sthash.R9VLRYQr.dpuf)

Magisterial statements like this can be multiplied -- and we can even find defenses of Latin in the liturgy in the Popes after the Council. So, I'm not quite sure why there's even a debate here at CMAA about whether Latin is appropriate and fitting for the liturgy. Really, as Fr. Z has often said about Gregorian chant, Latin needs no defense; it is the language of the Roman Rite, just as chant is the Roman Rite's native music. What needs defending is the use of other music and other languages. And I don't disagree that such a defense can be made, and that developments in the spheres of music and the vernacular are good, as far as they go. But it's by no means self-evident that doing everything or even most things in the vernacular is good, or is even tenable for a Roman Catholic.

I understand the attachment to Latin, as well as, the beautiful music written with Latin texts. I have heard of the universality of Latin, but it seems to me that Latin was if anything, universally unintelligible to the average pew sitters. One of the first things Cyril and Methodius did when evangelizing the Slavs, was to translate the Bible and the Liturgy into their languages so they could understand them. I can't find any reasons for liturgical languages in modern times, other than nostalgia and romanticized longing for the supposed grandeurs of the past. I did mention preservation of the excellent music with Latin texts. That much I do support.

@Rogue and others, yes, Jesus spoke several languages (unlike most English-only Americans- we are the global oddballs!) but does that mean we should forget that He also attended temple worship and so used the sacral language of His time?Latin remains the sacral language of the Latin Rite. Latin, not my beloved vernacular or anyone else's.


When I travel and speak with Catholics of good will from different parts of the world, I hear over and over again how they wonder if American Catholics think too highly of their brand of Catholicism, their American language, music, etc. It disappoints me to think I may have to concede their point.

Here are the parts of Mediator Dei I was thinking of:

That's the same part I was thinking of. It just doesn't say what you promised it did, namely, "that the Holy Spirit has providentially governed the development of the liturgy of the Church, and that the use of Latin was part of this providential design."

More potent still are the words of Bd. John XXIII in his Apostolic Constitution Veterum Sapientia of February 22, 1962 (note that date!):

The tragic problem with Veterum Sapientia is that it is full of factually erroneous claims, such as "the Church's language must be . . . immutable," "Latin is indeed . . . set and unchanging," and " the Latin language . . . is a general passport to the proper understanding of the Christian writers of antiquity" (that would be Greek; hardly anybody wrote in Latin). It's really a disappointment.

MaryAnn,

Who said English is a beloved vernacular? It's a mongrel throw-together---barely a language, not at all resembling the strictly conservative tendencies of Icelandic and Norwegian and certainly not possessing the liquid beauty of Latin and French, and still missing the lovely precise articulation of modern German. English is difficult to sing well, and I don't particularly like its clumsy constructions; inflected languages communicate more information with more precision. It's the first language God gave me, so I must use it when I go to the bank or talk to my wife.

And furthermore, Christ was worshipping as a Jew---not as a Christian. The Temple veil was rent at his death, and Christians have no need of secrets---we have mysteries instead. I think the Roman Church committed to a mistake a long time ago with its insistence on Latin language.

It would appear to me that the church intends that parts of the mass that do not change should be primarily said in Latin and that the changing parts such as the scriptural readings and the propers be permitted in the vernacular.

Other common texts such as the Ave Maria could be retained in Latin. I'm yet to meet someone who wanted the Schubert or Bach/Gounod Ave Maria translated for their wedding, or to have the Franck Panis Angelicus rendered in English.

Having a mass entirely in Latin doesn't bother me. I'm a Latin Scholar. It didn't bother me before I became a Latin Scholar, but I can see how it may bother some people.

However, I find it strange that people seem to want to sing in Italian and Spanish all the time when they don't speak those languages either!

At my old Parish Church, we used to sing Christmas Carols in several Languages. One year I sang "Silent Night" in English, German, French, Italian, Maltese and Vietnamese.

It's so strange that people like to do this, but would refuse to sing "Adeste Fideles"

This is purely annecdotal, but it has influenced my thoughts on the use of Latin in the Latin Rite (all uses).

An elderly lady I know and her late husband (both 'retired' choir-members) would take a trip every summer for a couple weeks. Both grew-up speaking French and English, they were passible in conversational German; but wherever they went - Germany, Austria, France, Portugal, Spain, Italy, Poland, Wales, Canada, Boston, Yonkers - they could participate in the Mass with "full, active, and concious" participation, by following in their Missals and by singing the chants of the Ordinary in Latin. That is, until the Vernacular Novus Ordo came in.

just like St. Pius X's ban on the use of the piano in church in Tra le Sollecitudini has never been abrogated

It looks like you're referring to section VI. Organ and instruments in Tra le Sollectitudini:

19. The employment of the piano is forbidden in church, as is also that of noisy or frivolous instruments such as drums, cymbals, bells and the like.

How does  Sacrosanctum Concilium   relate to the idea that the use of the piano and other non-wind instruments has "never been abrogated"?

120. In the Latin Church the pipe organ is to be held in high esteem, for it is the traditional musical instrument which adds a wonderful splendor to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up man's mind to God and to higher things.

But other instruments also may be admitted for use in divine worship, with the knowledge and consent of the competent territorial authority, as laid down in Art. 22, 52, 37, and 40. This may be done, however, only on condition that the instruments are suitable, or can be made suitable, for sacred use, accord with the dignity of the temple, and truly contribute to the edification of the faithful.

Similarly, Pope John Paul II seems to have affirmed Sacrosanctum Concilium  in his Chirograph...for the Centenary of the Motu Proprio 'Tra le Sollecitudini' on Sacred Music :

14. Again at the practical level, the Motu Proprio whose centenary it is also deals with the question of the musical instruments to be used in the Latin Liturgy. Among these, it recognizes without hesitation the prevalence of the pipe organ and establishes appropriate norms for its use[42]. The Second Vatican Council fully accepted my holy Predecessor's approach, decreeing: "The pipe organ is to be held in high esteem in the Latin Church, for it is the traditional musical instrument, the sound of which can add a wonderful splendour to the Church's ceremonies and powerfully lifts up people's minds to God and to higher things"[43].

Nonetheless, it should be noted that contemporary compositions often use a diversity of musical forms that have a certain dignity of their own. To the extent that they are helpful to the prayer of the Church they can prove a precious enrichment. Care must be taken, however, to ensure that instruments are suitable for sacred use, that they are fitting for the dignity of the Church and can accompany the singing of the faithful and serve to edify them.

I am a proponent of using the organ in church as well as a staunch proponent of following the Magisterium. However, based on my reading of these two documents, I am not understanding the idea that the use of the piano in church has "never been abrogated."

Tra Le Sollectudini is a Motu Proprio and is such is effectively LAW.

It's not effectively law. It is law. However, Sacrosanctum Concilium is an Apostolic Consitution which is not only more recent, but of a higher "rank" than a motu proprio. It lends the ability to admit other instruments to the territorial authority. At least in the USA, this admission has come on more than one occasion.

Let me put it this way. When there's a decent organ in the church I will play it and ask why on earth would you be trying to put anything else on?