Charles - I agree that there is plenty of room for experimentation and growth in the realm of congregational/choral ordinary composition. I hope creative minds come up with many and varied ways to impart some choral artistry into the congregational ordinary. The challenge, certainly not insurmountable, is to have a "back and forth" or harmonized format that is also clear enough for lay people to join into easily. I have heard Jernberg's Mass online, and thought it was lovely. I have no experience implementing it with congregation, so I can't speak to that, but it seems like something that could work well.

MACW: "What keeps me scratching my head is, how are we supposed to regard the treasury of sacred music as a true treasure, and then say that the choral ordinary- especially the classical polyphonic ordinary- shouldn't be offered as fitting praise to God? Why would music of this kind- routinely upheld as fitting praise and part of the treasury of sacred music- be considered unsuitable?"

Several things here. First, to say that a piece of music doesn't work well liturgically is not to say that it is unfit to be offered in praise of God. That would imply that there is something wrong, or unholy, inherent in the piece. To say that a particular choral ordinary is not a great liturgical piece is no judgment on its musical and sacred qualities.

Second, as I point out above, even Musicam Sacram does not regard the treasury as completely uniform (as in: anything in the treasury is fit for liturgical use). Rather, MS points out that some compositions from the treasury "do not correspond to the nature of the liturgy or cannot be harmonized with the pastoral celebration of the liturgy" and suggests other honorable, but non-liturgical settings for these piece. MS does not say which pieces are useful liturgically and which are not - it instructs experts in the field to examine the treasury and make this judgment.

Third, it is important to distinguish between the genre of classical polyphony, and the sub-genre of Mass ordinary settings. Polyphony is upheld in the documents as second in rank only to chant. The specific sub-genre of polyphonic ordinary settings is not specifically mentioned. So what we have in the Church's glowing treatment of polyphony is a recommendation of a specific way of setting sacred texts. Even IF we never used a choral ordinary liturgically, we could continue to delve into the treasury of classical polyphonic settings of other liturgical and sacred texts.

Your point about the range of choral ordinaries is good. Some choral ordinaries are so massive that they would probably never be helpful liturgically; some are so compact that they can be used without creating much noticeable change in the flow of the liturgy.

^^^^
Thank you, Sam.
Jared, fresh from Mass according to Jernberg- This is one of the subtle qualities that I have observed: The homophony is so intuitive and tight that I hear PIPs and celebrants (who are mic'd) just gravitating from the melody to another ear-worthy note and not skipping a beat. (The Miles Davis Principle.)
Will anyone answer my Mueller question?
Dad, you've only applied half of Spock's informed intellect, the not human half. The unpredictable, illogical (often Chaos theory) happenstance of applied practice by people surely allows for the outcome of "art for art's sake" assessment on the part of regular folks AKA the great unwashed.

So could I suggest that the argument against the choral Ordinary is,

1. Most Catholics experience either a Low (Dialogue) Mass or a Low (Dialogue) Mass with Hymns, and are quite happy with this arrangement.

2. Some Catholics experience a deformed Missa Cantata, with some or all of the Ordinary and a handful of songs / Hymns. If they are very very lucky they may even have heard the Propers sung! They are blissful in their ignorance and we should leave them to it.

3. A handful of clergy in Rome have spent the last century looking out into the congregation during Mass, and have spent far too much time worrying about what the congregation is doing. This has lead to lots of writings and rules from those clergy that had as their intention, that the Congregation is to be made to participate in certain ways. These rules and writing are not only contradictory, but can be arguably said to have failed in their intention. BUT we must take these writings as a good thing and ignore Tradition and perhaps good taste.

I find it somewhat bizarre to see photographs and films of a certain Cardinal in L.A. 'presiding' over a 'Mass' that finds plenty of time for young ladies in white dresses to wander around a table carrying vials of Incense. Another Cardinal in Austria to find time to play with balloons, and invite the congregation dressed in Wild West outfits to wander around the sanctuary during what I am told was a Mass. This appears to be o.k. in N.O land but if we dare to sing a choral Ordinary it is not ideally suited to the Liturgy.

I do note that the sequential nature of the N.O. causes problems for the Sanctus / Benedictus, but this is hardly going to lengthen the Mass by more than a few minutes. I also note there is always plenty of time for wacky Bidding Prayers... etc.

I also accept that certain choral Ordinaries due to their length and complexity are not suitable for the N.O. or even the E.F. as they are generally celebrated, BUT these more complex pieces may be suitable at Pontifical High Mass in Cathedrals with the increased ceremonial action.

N.B. I should remind that I only attend the E.F. and have not been to the N.O. Mass for 15 - 20 years.

In Jos. Pearce's book Catholic Literary Giants, Pearce develops the theme that Catholicism has a 'three-edged sword of Truth' with the three edges being reason, love, and beauty.

As you all recall, B-16 also spent some time discussing the nature and value of beauty. There must be something to it, eh?

Now, then, the 'great unwashed' are that precisely because no one has washed them in beauty and/or has educated them in the necessity thereof. It verges on incoherence to tell them that at Mass they can find reason and love, but not beauty, does it not?

YMMV, I suppose.

(No, I am not making the case that all choral Masses are 'beautiful,' nor that 'beauty' demands only choral ordinaries. But I'm with M.C. Wilson when she notes that this is a very confusing set of contra-indicative mandates.)

I want to reinforce something I said far up above -
It really is not at all 'what the people want' or 'what they expect'.
As Catholics, culturally they want and expect what their clergy and their what-would-be-church-musicians decide that they 'want' and 'expect', what they are going to get. They are not organised. They do not get together and decide these things. These things are decided for them. The persons responsible are their pastors and clergy and 'musicians', who are delirious enough actually to believe that what they call 'contemporary' music is modern and representative of XXIst century musical achievement. And, they have 'the people' so brainwashed and dumbed down that they, too, actually believe it.

Rather than splitting hairs over whether the NO is a real liturgy or whether God really prefers the EF, we should rejoice that any polyphony is being done and appreciated anywhere. I see little, if any, difference between, e.g., a choral sanctus 'holding up' the NO liturgical action, and in the same being sort of a blanket that proceeds over the continuous liturgical action, which action remains a purely clerical event going on whilst the people are (presumably) awe-struck or engaged in private devotions. If anything, the NO scenario is, in my poor and humble opinion, preferable.

The council expects conscious and active participation in the mass. This applies to the EF as well as the NO. There should be no delusion about this. This was what was envisioned from the beginnings of the liturgical renewal movements of the XIXth century, culminating in Vatican II. The EH is not exempt!

Most Catholics experience either a Low (Dialogue) Mass or a Low (Dialogue) Mass with Hymns, and are quite happy with this arrangement.

Is this actually true? I'm curious. Most places I've been, outside my own parish, do have a spoken Credo, but the other ordinaries are typically sung (granted, to a horribly inappropriate melody 6 times out of 10 and a merely non-offensive melody 3 times out of 10).

Or are you referring to the fact (as it is at least in my experience) that in most places the priest does not chant his part (and by implication, neither the congregation, though I just had the rather silly and wonderful image of a priest speaking his part and the congregation chanting in response)?

tomjaw: "So could I suggest that the argument against the choral Ordinary is,"

You could suggest anything you want - it's a free country! I'll just point out that the argument you outline has nothing whatever to do with the argument I've made against the choral ordinary.

My argument is that the choral ordinary is in tension with

1 - the sequential structure of the NO
2 - the legislation of the NO, as found in the GIRM
3 - the reform ideal of singing integral liturgical texts, while also involving the congregation in the singing (which ideal pre-dates Vatican II and the NO, by the way)

A lot of people on this thread seem to think that the argument against the choral ordinary is

1 - people prefer low mass with hymns
2 - people prefer music that is not very good
3 - anyone against choral ordinaries is pandering to 1 and 2

We have to be intellectually honest though, and realize that the rallying cry "we need better music in the liturgy!" is insufficient. What we need is subtly, but critically different: better liturgical music.

The GIRM is later and more specific legislation for the Missal, and has been updated with the new edition of the Missal. Where the GIRM and the Gradual conflict, the GIRM would normally control.

Don't assume that all, or even a majority, of the priests called to the priesthood during the prior pontificate will spend much capital on a Benedictine vision of the liturgy. Any more than is the case under any pontificate before or after. In particular, priests who are called to be pastors historically have not been promoted for the liturgical vision. For good or for ill. The historical Roman preference in its pastors is for prudence and administrative competence. Doesn't mean Rome always gets them, either. (That said, this preference has deep roots in Roman culture from before Toleration. Romans, historically, learned to be wary of marrying power to charisma - because it often ended bloodily. But there were exceptions, too.)

While watching the canonization Misa, after the massive, over the top Alleluia VI, I think that this single event wraps up in a nutshell both poles of the debate herein, and all points within.
I am not thus comforted.

Well have just done a google search for GIRM plus Gradual. I can see no Rubric that says that the instructions in the Gradual are to be ignored. I can also find plenty of referrals to the Gradual, to find what to sing.

So as far as I can tell the G.R. 1974 is still the authorised book for the choir, and can be used for all the Music!

I will also say looking at the GIRM that it is not written with clear instructions for the Choir, unlike earlier Rubrics in E.F. books. I assume that this is because the GIRM is only a general guide, and is not the primary source of information for the choir. This fits well with the historic situation between the M.R. and the G.R.

N.B. I was using the version of the GIRM on the Vatican website.

P.S. I am SO glad that I don't have to deal with the bizarre choice and unclear instructions that I have just read.

A general principle of law.

A law that I have demonstrated did not apply to the M.R. and its differences with the G.R.

Also I would really like a legal reference / Rubric that the GIRM takes precedence, rather than a general legal tradition!
N.B. Pope Benedict also gave us an eloquent example of this rule not applying universally with S.P.

I suspect that most people have forgotten about this historic situation, apart from perhaps those that produced the G.R. 1974.

Another thing I note, the GIRM is written in English, with little sign that it is a translation of a Latin original. This is unlike the earlier Rubrics of the E.F. that are clearly translations of the Latin original. I wonder how many differences there are between the English and the Latin GIRM?

I do wonder how the new edition of the G.R. is coming on and when it will be issued.

Jared

No problem, as a discussion becomes longer it is difficult to keep track. I had just noted what seemed to be the prevailing opinion of the thread. Your case was made perfectly clear from the beginning.

As for the GIRM vs. Graduale, A number of people here seem to think the GIRM is the last word, and I am not convinced.
I look at it from a historical perspective, and my instinct is to use the Graduale, as the primary book for the choir. Having read through the GIRM I also see that it suggests the choir look to the Graduale anyway. Of course if there is no choir the GIRM provides the other options for singing during / at the Mass.

Chonak

Thanks!
So the last official Graduale is for the E.F. I always forget about the OCM, we have no equivalent in the E.F.

I presume the OCM was only put into force for Masses in Latin because they assumed that the Normative form of the N.O. was also in Latin, and therefore...

All these years so many revisions and the Church still has not completed a full set of official books for the Mass and Office (for the N.O.)

Bruce - I see what you're saying. I suppose I feel that a discussion as to the validity or projected longevity (in whole or in a certain part) of the current missal and its accompanying instruction is "beyond my paygrade." It is very interesting to me that both here and at Pray Tell Blog I often run into the same conversation-stopper (not accusing you of this): "Well, the current legislation is a flawed committee document - you can't base too much on it." There may, or may not be truth to this, but once we go down that road I have an increasingly hard time distinguishing the Church's handing on of liturgy from individuals' handing on of personal theories about the liturgy.
For my part, I see the GIRM (at least in its treatment of the Ordinary and Proper) as a logical and consistent outgrowth not just of Musicam Sacram, but of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the major pre-conciliar liturgical texts, right back to 1903. And I think that the conflict between singing the integral mass texts and involving the congregation in singing would require our consideration, even if the 1970 Missal had turned out much differently.