Well, FWIW, whatever communion chant is being sung *during* the rite of Communion, it begins while the celebrant is consuming Communion, not after...

Well, IIRC from being helpfully corrected on this point in the past, the rubric for the Solemn High Mass was that that chant also began during the celebrant's communion.

Also because the period after the Lord, I am not worthy, through to the beginning of the Please join in our communion hymn, is one of the few periods of silence in the rite in practice.

Sorry, you lost me in the triple (quadruple?) negative. Are you suggesting that we sing the antiphon while the EMHC's are receiving Communion, and then sing a hymn while the rest of the congregation is receiving? Or are you saying this practice would be against the principles of the GIRM?

marc, yes, that is indeed what I'm offering as a viable solution in the former question; OTOH mathematical realities with many modern parishes who commune under both species mitigate against a strict interpretation of the GIRM.

We sing the Communion Proper as the priest drinks from the chalice. If it is a choir mass, I play (except during Lent) while the choir receives. Afterwards, the hymn begins. I don't want to turn that hymn into "99 bottles of beer" to cover all of the communion procession. Repeating the same verses again and again is ridiculous. All this is a bit more continuous at masses with a cantor.

In reality, doing exactly what the GIRM asks is difficult if not impossible. What were those crazy bishops thinking?

Adam Bartlett has versions of Psalm 34 in all 8 modes available at http://www.illuminarepublications.com

If you sing the actual Communion Proper and need to elongate it afterward, just continue on with Psalm 34 in the same mode.

@canadash Funny you should say that, because my priest is indeed a huge fan of Taize. We have even had several special Taize masses over the past year. Although, to be fair, all the chants we have sung have been in English. But it's certainly something I will look into. Can you point me to any specific chants you have used during Lent or Easter?

We will certainly see differences in newly ordained priests. I know two seminarians who are currently at St. Augustine's, and from what I've seen and heard, the Church's sacred music tradition is alive and well.

It comes to mind that there are a number of rather short, quickly and easily learnt, Latin chants for the joyful seasons of Easter, Christmas, Pentecost, etc., as well as penitential seasons, readily available in Liber Cantualis and other readily available books. At your next meeting with your pastor sing one of these with a joyful smile on your face...

For instance:
Surrexit Domine - - - LC p. 100
Ascendit Deus - - - - LC p. 70
Spiritus Paraclitus - - - LC p. 99

These, both words and music, are so easy and immediately attractive that your congregations could learn them effortlessly. Even people who resist chant might find them irresistable.

Liber Cantualis has also quite a few other brief and attractive chants that would be ideal to fit in at offertory or communion. These are so disarming that only the incorrigably and purposefully grumpy could fail to be enchanted by them.
Children love them.

So, the other shoe has dropped... I had a meeting with my pastor.

In summary, I think he has conceded the Communion proper to me (the lesser of 3 evils, he called it). However, he was not open to dialogue when it came to Latin, a "foreign and dead language" as he put it. Evidently, someone forgot to inform the Vatican.

Essentially, he believes that in order for the congregation to participate in the Mass, they must be able to sing. But reading between the lines, he has to be able to sing.

From my priest's perspective, last Sunday's Mass was a series of unfortunate events: An entrance hymn he didn't know (Forty Days and Forty Nights), an offertory hymn he had never heard (Attende Domine), and an Agnus Dei in Latin that he couldn't sing. Apparently, my saving grace was singing Lord Who Throughout These Forty Days---a hymn he knew well---as the recessional (This explains why he uncharacteristically waited for all 5 verses before exiting).

On Attende Domine, I suggested singing the verses in English and only the refrain in Latin; no dice... "Why would you do that when you have an entire book to choose from?" ...that book being Gather, but let's not go there. Honestly, I'm reluctant to even sing Attende Domine in English this Sunday, but I'll give it a go.

For the ordinary, looks like I will just revert back to the ICEL chants. And I'll bring back the de Angelis Kyrie at Easter.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the other choirs at my parish does in fact sing a full Latin ordinary once a month (They would probably sing it every week if they could). They sing at an 8:30 morning Mass, but my pastor believes that the 8:30 crowd is different from the 12 noon crowd. Apparently, the presence of children and families at the noon Mass precludes me from singing Latin.

Not much more for me to say... I think my current situation is unsustainable. As many of you have already said, my pastor must share my vision or else it's not going to work. I'll have to pray and discern whether I'm meant to continue in my position or to start looking for greener pastures.

Essentially, he believes that in order for the congregation to participate in the Mass, they must be able to sing. But reading between the lines, he has to be able to sing.

Yes, that's very true. I've noticed in some of the priests with whom I have worked that they feel very strongly about the necessity for them to be able to lead singing themselves, as if "the people" won't do it without them.

My other issue is with the whole notion of "participation." There is a very grave disagreement among people in the church about what this actually means. For some, it specifically means singing. For some, it only means doing the spoken responses; and for others, it means being present in mind, body, and spirit for the reception of the Eucharist. SC does mention the participation of the faithful in "...songs, psalms, etc..." but nowhere does it say that they have to be singing 100% of the time there is music. That, at least, is my take on it. I disagree with those that propose that "participation" means that the congregation is able to (and does!) sing EVERYTHING that we do, and that we are not allowed to do ANYTHING that they wouldn't be able to. I have two main problems with this: 1. It ignores the fact that people can participate at Mass through internal dialogue (prayer) and reflection (also a form of prayer) and that just because they are not singing, or not able to, does not mean that they are not participating, nor does it mean that they are not able to participate; and 2. It ignores the fact that in order to participate in any singing at all, unless you have been to music school or trained in singing in some other way, you must be able to learn the music BEFORE you can sing it: it doesn't matter how "easy" or "singable" the music is: if you haven't learned it, you can't sing it; which also takes a dig at hymns that are "forbidden" because they aren't "singable."

I also think that this is a political issue, not a musical or administrative one. There are people who want something, and Latin and propers get in the way of that, so they spin it to make it look like those things are so very bad for the Church and that "the people" won't "participate" if we use them. I've actually heard those arguments before. It's as if "participation" has become a buzz-word used to manipulate the clergy into doing what "the people" (the 2% club) want them to do.

"my pastor believes that the 8:30 crowd is different from the 12 noon crowd"

The widely unspoken reality in many, perhaps most, American Catholic parishes is that they are better understood as a federation of co-existing sub-parishes that share sacraments, space and staff. While there are people who might regularly attend weekend Mass at differing times, that's not typical of people in general. So, the "crowd" at each Mass may tend to have a distinct personality. I actually prefer that this is acknowledged rather than attempt uniformity across all Masses.

I don't know where you are and how often they rotate pastors. If he will be leaving in the near future, then go along to get along. You may have better luck with the next guy. Other than that, you probably need to look for another job in a better place.

He is correct about differing congregations. I have at least 4 that share the same building. Then there are two others that I don't deal with which have nothing much in common with the Sunday morning groups.

So, the "crowd" at each Mass may tend to have a distinct personality. I actually prefer that this is acknowledged rather than attempt uniformity across all Masses.

Completely valid point. I think the question is, to what extent should this affect the choices we make in sacred music and liturgy? And to what extent do we strive for universality?

When is it more important to—instead of giving people what they want to hear—give people what they need to hear?

There is great wisdom, as ever, in Liam's observation. And as I type, Liam's response to marc jumped in line, which basically states what I'm going to also offer.
marc's question of prioritizing "importance" between what the faithful need versus want remains in my estimation an unnecessary idyll, if not idol that trips so many of "us" up as we move about looking for "greener pastures."
Strident voices who adhere to the extreme poles of the combatants in the music wars insist upon essentially orthodoxies they've constructed from, ultimately, their own conclusions about what the church has legislated and taught is fit practice. And from that we can expect a pile and layers of words, citations, anecdotes, statistics and declarations to proceed to all like prophecy. Sometimes it causes me to tremble... because it indicates that we (directors) appear to be a class of artists/apostles of talkers, rather than listeners. And that's sadly ironic because we often admonish our singers that our art requires the use of the sense of hearing/listening as more beneficial to the art of singing than that of the larynx and the "voice." In that light, it is no small wonder that most of us are constantly dissatisfied with our career situations, are flummoxed by local controversies and contention, and as I've said, move on, thus creating another "Groundhog Day" for the next sacrificial lamb who takes up the DM mantle.
Here's my advice, succinct and direct:
1. Work with what you have in front of you, both in repertoire and personnel. Transform yourself before trying to transform the people to whom you're responsible.
2. Envision the trajectory of what you feel needs to be accomplished over an undertermined, indefinite period of time according to-
A. The standards of beauty that Dr. Kwasniewski's writings indicate are the bedrock of an informed artist.
B. The standards of performance that Todd Flowerday correctly insists must be attendant to any repertoire chosen to accompany ritual and worship.
C. The standards of professionalism, personal interaction and positivism that Carl Diershow advocates for us all.

Finally, remember Ecclesiates, for everything there is a season. A time to think inside the box; a time to think outside the box.

baloney. The Mass is the mass. This catering to preferences, tastes and parish clicks is nonsense and is the reason there is such rampant confusion and the "Church is in eclipse". (see La Salette).

If you want to invent your own flavor of religion, go start a nuchurch. Many have the philosophy for remaking the liturgy into what they want as opposed to what the Church prescribes. That is why we have priests kowtowing to money and influence instead of to the sacrifice. It's just a subtle excuse to justify the novel and the false pretense of the need for multiculturalism and diversity and innovation which is the way of the new age and relativism ("we can placate everyone"). It will ultimately find its end in a "universal" religion that embraces not only differences in musical taste, cultural distinctions and inclusive leanings, but will also include the worship of false dieties. (see world day of peace)

While I agree with those who call for a degree of flexibility, I think you need to get out of there. A priest who will actually forbid Latin, calling it (in his words) "a foreign and dead language," has more issues than just Latin. You are dealing with a pastor who:

1. Has no idea what he is talking about.
2. Has no qualms about creating sweeping policies based on that ignorance.

Take care of yourself and your family, and find a better situation for your own sanity.

And you have a true day. (don't really subscribe to nice at the cost of truth... i lived in the 'nice' church for decades and then God knocked me off my horse. i was the example of 'nice', traveling internationally and pandering their wares, appearing on TV promoting 'nice'. been there, done that, repented, and am forgiven. now on with the TRUTH.)

.

charlesW

What is true for you may not be true for me!?

No we can't have burgers during the Great Fast. ;-)

Have some good chocolate. It's probably better for you. :-) This will be true chocolate consistent with the true faith.

Sympathies, soarmarc.

The fact that your priest never heard of "Attende Domine" tells you he had a deprived liturgical formation, and perhaps that is what he is following. With "Attende", at least you can point to the fact that it's commonly printed in mainstream "missalette" booklets and hymnals, so you can prove it's not something known only to you.

To priests dealing with a director of music who chooses music he does not know is like having a bookkeeper who has a different way of accounting for cash in and out - a frustration and a nuisance.

Expecting them to be convinced by you that your way is better is nothing but a nuisance to them. They've attended many more Masses than you have and your way does not fit the model that they are used to.

Get along or get out. Trying to "change" them implies rather strongly that you know more than they do...not a very good position to be in.

As Mellowly Unaffluent said above, if you are leaning towards a pole that strays from what he knows, you are an irritant and a pain, since you are not asking him what he wants and doing it. He signs the checks, not Rome, the GIRM or Musica Sacra.

stay salty, even though all people give bitter experience.

I have similar story, in our Cathedral, they need additional choir group to fill in. Our schola cantorum happily and voluntary want to serve Church. We have been gave 5 A.M. Mass time. So we are prepare and serve the Church.
After three times we serve the church, when we made ourself ready from 4 A.M. (this is traditionaly 1 hour before mass we readying ourself, wear choir vestment and warm up) , another assigned pastor's choir group is come. They said suddenly, our service is not require again with gentle manner, kick us, in 5 A.M. mass.

smile :)

If your group does not have an opportunity to sing at Mass, you might like to start singing Vespers together weekly. It does not require the presence of a priest, even.