I haven't got my SM issue yet, but RStrings I have to ask: Which of these is your idea of a choral Mass?
Missa Papa Marcelli (PdaPalestrina); Deutsche Messe (Schubert); Missa Solemnis (Beethoven); Mass of the Bells (Peloquin); Missa Oecumenica (Proulx arr.); Missa MR3 (Mueller); Mass of the Angels (Richard Clark); Mass of St. P. Neri (Paul Jernberg)?

Not wishing to preempt the OP's thoughts, but to answer Melo's question, I think the article in question addressed mainly those choral mass settings that are sung by the choir alone, such as Missa Papa Marcelli, or about anything heard at St. Agnes in St. Paul, MN (explicitly mentioned in Ostermann's article). I think that (particularly modern) choral settings, such as Jernberg or my own for 4-part SATB choir, that are also singable using the melody only and are tailored more for liturgical use are not what Ostermann is talking about, since one of the main points he makes is the usurpation of the congregation's part(icipation) in choral masses goes against the GIRM.

I figured as much, Chuck. But the irascible notion that RC PIPs can only function by a hearing just a melody line, and that generally amplified above the level of both congregation and choir, is so repugnant to my geezer sensibilities. I look forward to the article, but as Mahrt always sez "Everything in equal measure." 52 Sundays plus Holydays per year, a couple of choral ones (I've never done one actually ala Mahrt) ain't gonna bust the bank.

CHG - "one of the main points he makes is the usurpation of the congregation's part(icipation) in choral masses goes against the GIRM"
Not quite. I point out that the GIRM treats the different parts of the traditional 5-part Ordinary differently. Some are accompanied by an explicit mention of only the choir singing (Gloria), others (Kyrie, Agnus Dei) seem to implicitly allow for the choir alone to sing, and for the Sanctus and Credo there is no implicit or explicit mention that the choir sings these parts alone. I suggest that at least the choral sanctus and credo seem, on the face of things, to go against the GIRM.

I also point out that Musicam sacram article 16c explicitly deprecates (or "does not permit", depending on translation) the practice of giving the entire ordinary and proper to the choir - this may be what you're referencing here.

Pope Benedict XVI seemed to think a choral Sanctus was ok.

Matthew - Musicam sacram only forbids the all-choral ordinary AND proper; it explicitly allows the all-choral ordinary, which would include the sanctus.

There are certainly some (informed and knowledgeable people) who would point to the GIRM's treatment of the sanctus as forbidding an all-choral sanctus. Others hold that Musicam sacram article 34 supersedes the apparent non-allowance of a choral sanctus in the GIRM. You can read the Dulles article both I and Mahrt reference in our articles: http://media.musicasacra.com/pdf/choralsanctus.pdf. And then-cardinal Ratzinger was fine with the choral sanctus in the book Sing to the Lord. At the same time, other opinions exist; for example that the GIRM in its specificity supersedes a general instruction published two years before the new liturgy with its praenotanda was presented to the church.

Having read opinions on both sides of the debate, I have not found either side to make a wholly compelling or conclusive case. Frankly, most treatments I have seen seem to start with either a love or a hate of the choral ordinary, and then proceed to construct a legal case either for or against the genre. In the end, this may just be a gray area, in terms of liceity. This is why my article does not tackle the issue of liceity. Rather, the clear purpose of my article is to differentiate between the merely licit and the ideal. Even if it does not conclusively forbid an all-choral sanctus or credo, the GIRM does offer a nuanced treatment of the five Mass Ordinary "movements." The GIRM is the official instruction accompanying our current Novus Ordo liturgy. I believe that the GIRM's differing treatment of these different parts of the Mass is worth considering, and should not be brushed aside with a glib "well, Musicam sacram article 34 says...". I am happy to grant that we CAN have 5-movement choral ordinaries. The question is whether we should invest the time, talent, and money to build parish or cathedral programs around the choral ordinary as some kind of apex of liturgical music. The GIRM is just one indication to me that the choral ordinary cannot be considered ideal in the Novus Ordo, even if it is licit.

In other words, granted that we CAN have choral ordinaries in the novus ordo, how can the ideal music for the novus ordo clash so clearly with the liturgical instructions accompanying this form of the Roman Rite? I continue to hold that the ideal music - the music we devote the greater part of our effort toward - must spring organically from the liturgy as received in the official liturgical books of our time.

Thank you, JaredOstermann, for your article and subsequent responses here. I have to say that I am quite persuaded to agree with you on the inability to reconcile a general commitment to the choral ordinary for the Novus Ordo Mass. I do think that it can be beneficial in certain contexts (Colloquium, for instance, but also at certain well-formed parishes), and it certainly is a treasure to be maintained by Church choirs, even if it cannot be successfully incorporated into the liturgies.

I am curious, Jared, what you think of my original post, which was spurred by reading your article. Does it seem like part of the danger of a choral ordinary that you posit stems from a larger danger of allowing people to continue participating in Mass without any liturgical formation?

I know that it is common at this point, even in very well-crafted Mass settings, to avoid setting the Creed, but I wonder if we are using the ferial ordinaries as our model for that, even when we intend for our Mass setting to be used on Sundays.

I think it a sad commentary on our liturgical times that we actually debate the validity of a mass ordinary sung polyphonicallly. Can we agree that the greatest of all western music are the mass settings of Palestrina, Mozart, Bach, Haydn, to just name a few? And here are discussing whether it is ever proper to use such music. I am not debating the value of employing settings that the congregation can sing, merely questioning the wisdom of relegating the greatest of our culture to the liturgical dust bin.

Incidentally, I justify graduals at weddings the same way: rather than tasking an untrained, unrehearsed congregation with the singing of a response that they almost certainly will not sing (by either choice or limitation), this is a great time to sing the beautiful and haunting “Uxor tua”. :)

RomanticStrings, I believe the model is initiation==>participation==>mystagogic catechesis. In other words, participation leads to, and brings the graces necessary for, formation (we are never perfectly formed in this world). I am well aware of the current lack of lay liturgical formation (although I think sometimes we assume our times are incomparably worse than the past). So my response to your original post is that I see a crying need for liturgical formation, without necessarily seeing a danger for poorly formed people in the liturgy. I guess my question would be - does there need to be a test or some kind of bar you pass before you can participate in the liturgy?

One more before Sunday naptime...

Felipe Gasper - "Among the forces that were in play during the formation of the “Novus Ordo” liturgy, the ones who prized physical participation by the congregation over preservation of the actual musical tradition clearly “won the day”."

This seems like a false dichotomy to me (congregational participation vs. musical tradition). Because right in the current rubrics we have explicit permission for the choir to sing the entrance, offertory, and communion chants, as well as the gradual and the alleluia verse. So it doesn't seem to me that congregational participation displaced the traditional repertoire. Rather, it is the ordering of priorities of congregational vs choral singing that displaced one (admittedly enormous) portion of the choral treasury - the choral ordinary. The idea that the congregation should sing something at Mass certainly predates the Novus Ordo. The idea that the Ordinary is the first major priority for the congregation (after simple dialogues and responses) also predates the Novus Ordo - and is borne out by music history, which shows the ordinary as originally more of a (simple, syllabic, recurring) congregational chant and the proper as the domain of the schola. It is no accident that the first great polyphonic experiments (e.g. Winchester Troper or Magnus Liber Organi) were propers rather than ordinary chants. And now, in spite of great upheaval, the choral Proper is left completely intact in the Novus Ordo.

FG: "the “crown jewel” of the Roman liturgical music tradition is the polyphonic Ordinary. "

Here again, I would push back and say that the chant repertoire is the crown jewel of the Roman liturgical music tradition. Polyphony is wonderful too, but nothing compares with chant as a unique repertoire for the liturgy. Also keep in mind that the Church only speaks of polyphony in the documents - without mentioning specific sub-genres of the polyphonic repertoire. In other words, not only is the polyphonic ordinary not the crown jewel, but it is dangerous to equate the polyphonic ordinary with the art of polyphony itself. We can pack the liturgy with polyphony, and even Proper polyphony, without using the polyphonic ordinary sub-genre at all.

Look, I've never been accused of being an optimist. But there is a time when looking on the bright side helps clarify a way forward. Various liturgical changes historically have brought upheavals in repertoire. Imagine living through the suppression of the sequence repertoire, or the pain felt by French organists such as Durufle when their awe-inspiring improvisational skill in the centuries-old French alternatim and organ mass tradition was suddenly no longer required. I don't mean to downplay the pain and disorientation all of this liturgical change causes. But the duty of the musician is to move forward by crafting artful music that fits the liturgical reality of the time.

Jared: Thanks for your thoughtful replies!

I maintain that congregational singing vs. Roman liturgical music tradition is a valid dichotomy—at least for the Eucharist. The chants for the Office are relatively simple and could gainfully be sung by a congregation, but neither the Mass Proper nor the choral Ordinary tradition admits congregational singing to any appreciable degree. In 1967, a mandate that congregations must sing either the Ordinary “or” Proper effectively ended the liturgical use of choral Ordinaries since it is not feasible for the congregation to sing the Proper.

(And, I tend to think, not even advisable if it were possible, just as how we wouldn’t ask a congregation to recite the Scripture readings together.)

By “crown jewel”, I meant something more along this line: in 1967, as symphonies are the “crown jewel” in the repertoire of most orchestras, so would choral Ordinary settings have been in a good liturgical choir’s repertoire. Telling capable liturgical choirs to exclude polyphonic Ordinaries but retain chant and motets is rather like telling orchestras that they cannot play symphonies but can still do smaller works like “Scheherezade”.

But the duty of the musician is to move forward by crafting artful music that fits the liturgical reality of the time.

That is it, JO! I think that is what has largely been lacking in so much of what has come in the last 50 years. More than whether it is artful or not, it seems a lot was crafted for some liturgical world that does not match the actual reality of the Church's liturgy.

Dr. Mahrt, I did not intend for this discussion to address the choral ordinary topic specifically, but I do wish to commend you for a well-crafted reply. I find myself in the lovely position of agreeing with both of you, and not feeling particularly partisan about these particular positions. I believe in the great importance of retaining the tradition of choral ordinaries, but I do understand the need to ensure that it is put into perspective of the larger musical tradition, and the liturgical needs of our day (which unfortunately are in part shaped by the poor liturgical catechesis of our fellow Catholics).

I suppose the big thing for me is Ostermann's "initiation==>participation==>mystagogic catechesis" model. The choral ordinary seems to be something that is most effective for certain entrenched Catholics in the final stage of his model (whereas non-Catholics can find transcendence in it immediately, perhaps because they are not invested in a particular way of worship). While the initiation stage is achieved largely automatically, and the participation stage is in some places moving forward, I fear that the mystagogic catechesis is far delayed. I guess what I mean is that we should begin tomorrow working to ensure that every Catholic, in every way, is liturgically formed. A full frontal assault. Anything less is a betrayal of our brethren.

Indeed, MJO, chant ordinaries should be the norm.

This reminds me: though the GIRM makes a distinction when referring to congregational participation, what shall we make of the emphasis put on the fact that the choir is part of the congregation in the liturgical assembly?

I always find it jarring when I see a choir that is not vested (during mass). It sometimes makes mass feel just a bit like a jamboree.

It has also been my experience that many in the congregation both expect and appreciate that members of the choir behave in a ministerial way. Vesture helps them to play this role, in my opinion.

Rubrics and such of the EF presume a rather more strictly codified arrangement (I think)

@MJO I find the major difference between the EF and the OF is the freedom of the choir. In E.F. land it is normal for the choir / choirmaster to choose the music, with little or no input from the Priest. In the OF the music is more likely to be micro-managed.

Our Parish priest will quite happily tell his O.F. choir what to do, what to sing etc. While his E.F. schola will only be expected to go over the Intonations he will be expected to sing, just before Mass.

In the E.F. while we have strictly codified rules such as what Propers we use, and what melodies they are sung to, that we must sing nonsecular melodies, and the language we sing in. We have great freedom with the Ordinary, and motets we sing during Mass.

Generally speaking, the Choral Ordinary doesn't 'work' in the average parish; but neither does the Gradual and the Alleluia - from the GR - either, and for the same reason: the foundation of the N.O. is not strong enough to bear the weight of such an imposing aedifice.

And just from reading the varying citations of Musicam Sacram in both articles: it seems to be a self-contradictory and ambiguous document just like most everything else to come from the hierarchy since Lumen Gentium. YMMV

Salieri -

I don't think (at least in this respect) that Musicam Sacram is ambiguous. It presents a clear hierarchy of singing roles, in continuity with pre-conciliar documents (congregational ordinary is first priority after simple dialogues/responses). It also is careful not to rule out the choral ordinary, though, as a concession to the choral treasury. If you consider the conciliar call for involving the congregation in the proper as much as possible (borne out in projects like the Graduale Simplex), then it is not inconsistent to imagine that a choral ordinary could coexist with a congregational proper. In other words, I don't see the ban on choir singing both ordinary and proper as intended to destroy the choral ordinary genre. I think, at least for the writers of the document, the congregational proper seemed like a real possibility.

Now, the weakness in my mind is that in practical reality it is very difficult to come up with a congregational proper repertoire that actually works. This was a call from the church that doesn't make much sense to me, either practically or in consideration of the historical repertoire. The proper was never a congregational phenomenon historically (the Deutsche Messe as a case in point - the words stayed the same each week!). It is very strange for me that after 1965 years the church is suddenly expected to create a congregational proper repertoire. And I'm just not sure that this will ever work well. As Peter Latona put it at the last CRCCM conference, if we simplify propers enough, both textually and musically, that they become conducive to congregational singing, in what sense have we actually retained the propers (a musical-textual phenomenon)? However, the best path forward for proponents of the choral ordinary would be to really work on this idea of congregational propers. IF you can solve that puzzle with your parish, you can make a much better case for the choral ordinary.

@Salieri I think we can make a case for the Choral Ordinary... Why can we not have beautiful music in the setting for which it was written? In the Centre of London quite a few Churches and Cathedrals have Choral Ordinaries each week (and Choral Vespers) it seems to work very well as they keep this up year after year.

Your example of the Bach B minor Mass is a case in point. Fantastic, yes, but would anyone argue that this is a good liturgical work? Or for that matter the Mozart great C Minor, or the Bruckner F minor...

I am sure I have seen all the above listed at some stage in the music lists.

O.K. I admit that they do not fit very well with the N.O rubrics the Sanctus particularly. But these Masses are popular and the congregations are more than happy to put their hands in pockets to pay for the professional choirs. In major city centre churches the music can fit quite well with the vast spaces in these churches, let alone the art that covers the walls (of similar age to the music).

Do these great choral work work in small churches or chapels well not really but we have choral works suitable (Byrd, Hassler etc.) Do we need this every week? NO, Do we have this every Mass? NO. But is it a good idea for smaller places to have the occasional choral Ordinary? YES, there are usually more than one Mass on a Sunday, just go to the other one.

N.B. I quite agree the Proper should be left in the hands of the choir, UNLESS you have a very competent congregation that wants to sing.

I have just finished Dr. Ostermann’s article in SM Summer 2015 and am generally in concurrence with many of his conclusions. There are some aspects that I, for one, need clarification and perhaps amplification in order to comprehend all points. The first overall concern, which likely cannot be cogently discussed, is how to speak about “parallel” and “sequential” structures without mentioning specific examples of various eras and genres of “choral ordinary settings?” The “problem” specific to the Sanctus is dealt with thoroughly and accurately I believe. But the discussion of postures during movements having a larger volume of text is also dependent to some extent upon why and how composers choose textual repetitions/reiterations, augmenting textual passages for some sort of mutual exposition of both music and text, subdividing portions of movements in order to introduce new thematic motifs and textures (solo/soli/tutti and such) and other compositional devices. And in that vein, the catechesis called for to be provided a congregation participating in a choral ordinary may not only appear to delay the ritual, but also (in the case of a Sanctus explicitly) exclude the direct and mandated participation of the whole congregation as clearly called for at the end of the preface.
I agree with Jared’s reminder that a wholly choral rendering of both Ordinary and processional and lectionary Propers is contrary and improper to a clear understanding in #16 of Musicam sacram.
But, as I have indicated before in this thread and elsewhere, cannot a consortium of very capable, academically sound composers meet (a sort of CMAA version of the Milwaukee Symposium folks at NPM) and review how there can be fully choral portions of new settings that are aesthetically worthy of the choral arts, but also don’t relegate the congregations to perfunctory, even banal melodies interspersed between “the good parts?” I mean how many times should they be expected to chant the incipit of the de Angelis “Gloria” as “their part” of the glorious hymn?

^^ The Bruckner Masses No. 3 in F minor and No. 2 in E minor are vastly different works. The E minor requires about 40 minutes to perform, employs a wind ensemble of 15 instruments (no strings, percussion, or organ), is scored for 8-part mixed chorus, and uses Gregorian-like melodies in several places, as well as having incipits intoned by a soloist (or priest) for the Gloria and Credo. The F minor, requiring about 65 minutes to perform, is scored for full orchestra, including tympani and organ, mixed chorus and four soloists, and the writing style does not rely on Gregorian-like material.

One might as well have the first movement of Mahler's 8th Symphony ("Veni Creator Spiritus") performed at Mass on Pentecost, too.

And, about that Mahler, don't forget ordinations and the consecrations of bishops!