Sticky.

Look at #157: “"The proper or seasonal Responsorial Psalm from the Lectionary for Mass , with the congregation singing the response, is to be preferred to the gradual from the Graduale Romanum." Citation to GIRM: "The Responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary” (GIRM, no. 61; see LFM, nos. 20, 89).

Those don't seem to be saying the same thing.

I'm finding this document rather frustrating

There are many, many problems here. Mostly it reads like the contents of the house junk drawer. And yet I agree with Gavin to this extent: it is a big improvement over MCW.

There is also the matter of why it needs to exist at all...

In a word: disaster.

As early as paragraph 11 we're set up with the "party line" translation of No. 14 from Sancrosanctum Concilium ("full, active, conscious participation"). From that point it becomes the excuse for manipulative inculturation.

The door is left wide-open for polka, mariachi and even "hootenany" music for Mass. It does nothing to concretely define, without equivocation, that the music should be closely tied to the liturgy and stand apart from time, history and culture. There's lots of reference to "appropriateness," followed by references to "pastoral sensitivity." I'm on paragraph 127 now, and drowning in a sea of cultural relativism.

In section IV.B. there are multiple references to collaboration: pastor, music director, liturgists, planners. (I don't think I've ever seen the word "liturgist" used in a Roman or curial document, though I could be wrong.) Everyone gets to weigh in with their opinion. So the identity of music for the liturgy no longer rests with the liturgy, it gets pushed about by issues of relevance: "Is this particular piece of music appropriate for this use in the particular Liturgy?" Para. 126.

The characteristics of the particular "gathered assembly" at that time have weight, and each liturgical celebration is viewed as an isolated, one-time event: "Each particular liturgical celebration is composed of many variable verbal and non-verbal elements: proper prayers, etc., . . .the socio-economic context in which the particular community is set, or even particular events impacting the life of the Christian faithful." Para. 123.

I can now see why they decided to vote on this as a set of "guidelines" which do not require the recognitio of the Holy See. I think we're being sold down the river, and I also think we should guard against capitulation. If so many bishops have been able to make a hash out of something as weighty and important as the motu proprio Summorum Pontificum by engaging in actions and issuing statements that misinterpret or entirely misrepresent its content, blocking its implementation, contrary to the wishes of the Holy Father, how can we possibly expect them to issue a solid, orthodox directive regarding music and liturgy for the Church in America?

As for me, I'm not willing to give this a pass.

Have a look at the highly inadvisable paragraphs 78 and 80, which take a slap at the classical Solesmes editions. We are told that the Hymnarius is the only real authoritative book in the field of chant. Here we have a not-subtle endorsement of semiology as a research school, even though 99% of parishes using chant use classical Solesmes.

And paragraph #79 warns against changing vernacular chants in the Missals even though the typos and misprints are legendary. Essentially one cannot sing precisely what is written because the typography was so hastily done. Nor do the melodies always work. This is why composers and celebrants are constantly having to revise them.

If he is correct..."it's the best we can hope for from them", then we need a new American hierarchy.

Duuuuuuuuhhh..... Actually, it is coming. Every time a bad bishop retires, the pope appoints a good one in his place. I don't need to name names of recently appointed bishops who do their jobs.

I disagree that the Extraordinary Form is a safehaven for musicians. As frustrating as my job can get, I'm glad no one runs up to the loft after every Mass imposing their own excommunications on me for playing Bach or using a vernacular hymn or some other musical decision that they think made the Mass invalid. I'll take the aging hippies over that crowd any day!

Jeff, now you understand why I'm against musical regulation by bishops! ;)

Fairly clear in reading the doc that there were two authors, ONE of whom paid attention to Dr. Mahrt's presentation.

The other is representative of the past 40 years' wandering in the desert.

About time for another Sinai-event, no?

From the FAQ

Q: What is sacred music?
A: Sacred music is “that which, being created for the
celebration of divine worship, is endowed with a certain
holy sincerity of form,” according to the Sacred
Congregation of Rites in its Instruction on Music and
the Liturgy, Musicam Sacram (1967, ¶4). As defined
by the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Sacrosanctum
Concilium (1963), sacred music surpasses merely
religious music when it is joined to the liturgical rite
to become “a necessary and integral part of the solemn
liturgy,” whose purpose is “the glory of God and
the sanctification of the faithful” (¶112).

http://www.musicasacra.com/pdf/smfaq.pdf

This section caught my eye:

"237. Formula tones (newly written psalm tones, Anglican chants, faux-bourdons) are
readily available and well suited for vernacular texts. Care should be taken when setting
vernacular texts so that the verbal accent pattern is not distorted by the musical cadence.
Gregorian chant tones are suited to the Latin language, which does not, for the most part, have
accents on the final syllable of a line. For this reason, Gregorian tones should generally not be
used for those vernacular languages that have final accents, or else the Gregorian cadences
should be adapted to fit the accentuation of the vernacular language."

English, Spanish, Italian...aren't all of these vernacular languages that have, to varying degrees, "final accents"? This would rule out setting English psalm texts to the Gregorian tones, for example for the responsorial psalm. So does this mean that the Chanabel psalms, Anglican Use gradual and By Flowing Waters are a no-go?

Given the mixed feelings about English-ing Gregorian chant among Gregorian Chant enthusiasts, I imagine that many would agree with this section of the document. I take the point that Gregorian tones are especially suited to the cadences of the Latin language, but I also think that English psalms pointed to Gregorian tones is not really all that bad if done carefully, and often sounds better than the usual alternatives. But are Murray tones, for example, to be preferred for English? Thoughts?

Here's another question: They've stated that a "directory" of approved music is going to be released within 3 years. Who will judge this music? Will they start by insisting that the texts come directly from the liturgy, and then insist that the music support but not dominate that text? Will someone finally decide that simply because a text (or an adaptation of a text) comes from scripture doesn't necessarily mean that it's appropriate to be set for congregational singing for use in the liturgy? (So many "voice of God" texts! So many texts where we sing to, about and for ourselves!) Or will so much of the junk being produced be "grandfathered" in and given a pass?

I've actually pointed out to several of the more conservative staff members where I work that neither of the hymnals we use (both from GIA) have a nihil obstat or imprimatur, but rather were printed under the rather slippery "ecclesiastical authority" of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Musical styles and genres aside, I have repeatedly pointed out texts that border on heresy to the clergy, etc., and they seem mildly shocked, but don't seem interested in taking any firm action on it. Didn't Pius XII declare Modernism a heresy, subtly infused with Palagianism?

How much more patience can we be expected to exhibit?

Something positive about this document, at section IV A ("What Parts Do We Sing"):

It appears to recognize the principle of progressive degrees of participation, although it refers to this principle as "progressive solemnity", which we would normally associate with something different. (Confusingly, the document discusses what we ordinarily understand "progressive solemnity" to be in the same section. In other words, paragraphs 7 and 11 of Musicam Sacram are lumped together as though they were discussing the same thing.)

Anyway, this is a huge step forward. Although it might have been made clearer, the document appears to recognize, at 115 (a), that the most important parts of the Mass to be sung are the parts that are almost never sung: "Every effort should . . . be made to introduce or strengthen as a normative practice the singing of the dialogues between the priest, deacon, or lector and the people." Unfortunately it does not spell out exactly what these are, but rather gives two examples, one of which is from the Liturgy of the Hours. But we know from Musicam Sacram that these include:

"(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord's Prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal."

When it comes to what has the next priority in terms of singing, Sing to the Lord engages in a bit of ambiguity. It lists different degrees, but the order does not correspond with that of Musicam Sacram. Nowhere does it say explicitly that the list of degrees is in any order although it seems to suggest that it is more important that the congregation sing the entrance and communion antiphons than the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei (M.S. says the opposite).

The section also suggests, though not very forcefully or clearly, that "proper antiphons" are to be preferred to hymns.

The now mercifully defunct Music in Catholic Worship claimed that the old distinction between propers and ordinary no longer applies. Amazing to think of the damage that document did. just amazing.

Yes, it would be good to compare them. I would also like to see a list of the really bad things in MCW that were taken out.

Honestly, David, I do wonder if these document will get any attention at all outside this forum.

Maybe the news here is not this document as such but that MCW has been killed. There needs to be some sort of eulogy written for that.

My impressions - first, the big stinker that kept resurfacing was a reference to "multicultural pluralism" and "pastoral sensitivity." Statements like, # 30:

"The choir may draw on the treasury of sacred music, singing compositions by composers of various periods and in various musical styles, as well as music that expresses the faith of the various cultures that enrich the Church."

That seems like opening the door to mariachi and polka Masses... while not excluding Palestrina of course. In general, the primacy of being "pastoral" makes all music choices subjective to the individual situation.

Another thing that jumped out at me was the insistance of the primacy of congregational singing. Even while the document carefully states the "internal" sense of full, active and conscious participation, out the other side of its mouth it says,

"So that the holy people may sing with one voice, the music must be within its members’ capability. Some congregations are able to learn more quickly and will desire more variety. Others will be more comfortable with a stable number of songs so that they can be at ease when they sing. Familiarity with a stable repertoire of liturgical songs rich in theological content can deepen the faith of the community through repetition and memorization." (no. 27)

This implies that sacred music should be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator of congregational singing. It becomes clear that the choir should sing a bare minimum of the liturgical music, leaving that job to the congregation:

"The choir must not minimize the musical participation of the faithful. The congregation commonly sings unison melodies, which are more suitable for generally unrehearsed community singing. This is the primary song of the Liturgy... [the choir may] enrich the celebration by adding musical elements beyond the capabilities of the congregation alone." (No. 28)

So much for any lip service given to Gregorian chant!

After all the good information I've absorbed from the CMAA since joining (getting close to a year ago), by comparison "Sing to the Lord" is a self-contradicting and apparently politically negotiated document that claims to give guidelines that could be implemented in a parish, and winds up being just a frustrating read. I did not read the previous bishop's document for comparison, though no doubt it was worse. They are making some baby steps in the USCCB, but thankfully the grass-roots sacred music movement seems to be Holy Spirit-driven and is making some real progress, judging by the chant workshops and success of the colloquium. And there continues to be reassurance from the liturgical practices in Rome and statements of Pope Benedict that affirm the authentic Church teaching on sacred music, which is easy to access and understand. It helps discern the meat from the fluff in a document like this.

Jeff, when I first come across Sacrosanctum Concilium ¶116 5 years ago(!) from where this phrase originates, I read that paragraph as implying Gregorian chant as eminently suitable, and other music less so; or the other styles being equal, but somewhat less suitable than Gregorian chant.

Here is my full blog post on SC ¶116. I think our interpretation of the phrase is the same; I'll submit that my 2002 interpretation of this paragraph plays a bit faster and looser regarding "other styles of music".

Jeffery,

I have a great deal of respect for your positions, and especially items I have read that you have authored.

I'm reminded of the quote from your Top Ten Unknown Truths: "ceteris paribus does not mean: unless you don't like it."

Unfortunately, thanks to the American bishops, the door to personal preference has been kicked completely off its hinges.

It seems to me that some of the conditions you refer to that make the use of chant unviable are the direct result of the actions (or inactions) of the bishops themselves. They have permitted ill-suited, accoustically unfriendly (not to mention liturgically unfriendly) "worship spaces" to be designed and built in their dioceses. Parish priests who were trained since Vatican II have little to no knowledge, exposure or experience with chant. (Not to mention language. Latin, at least at the seminary in our diocese, is not mandatory. Spanish, however, is.)

At the parish level, the pastors tend to not pay attention to what is being taught regarding music in the parochial schools. (I can pretty much guess that few parochial schools that do have a music teacher have one that knows anything about the music of the tradition). Thus our schools are raising yet another generation of people who will be unable to sing chant, or develop a kind of prejudice against it vis a vis the music typically used for "school Masses." Groups like NPM treat the use of chant as a novelty, and rarely (if ever) present "breakout sessions" at their conventions that take the learning and teaching of reading chant seriously. The cultivation of deep skills in music for the "pastoral musician" simply isn't encouraged, let alone mentioned at any level. There's plenty of concern for "being pastoral," little for being musically trained and disciplined.

"Other things being equal," nothing in this situation is equal. By design the use of chant at the parish level is going to be fraught with struggles, if not out and out roadblocks. We can insist on the ideal all we want, and ever shall it remain, the ideal. I'm 30 pounds over my ideal weight. I have two choices: take the actions necessary to loose it, or, "other things being equal," suffer the consequences of my inaction. Wishing to be thinner has never worked for me, despite knowing what the ideal is. Wishing that chant would be the norm for music in the liturgy won't work either, no matter how much we know what the ideal is.

I always cringed a little when I heard "other things being equal" along with the "pride of place" statement because it sounded way too open to interpretation. Yet when it is quoted by church documents or faithful priests, the context is clear - that Gregorian chant is simply the most appropriate, most approved of, sacred music for the Roman Rite. I always took the "other things being equal" to mean other forms of music beyond chant and polyphony.

My pastor had some comments in his bulletin column last weekend http://www.saintpetercatholic.com/current-bulletin.html related to this theme. He takes it from the perspective of hierarchy of options given for the introit by the GIRM; it is a further clarification on what Vatican II said.

QUOTE STARTS HERE:
Continuing the reflections on sacred music, how is it determined what is suitable to be sung at Mass during the entrance procession of the ministers to the sanctuary? In order to ensure that our worship is in fact “in spirit and truth” (John 4:24) according to the mind of the Church (and not simply according to our own personal whims or opinions, likes or dislikes), it is necessary to consult the latest “how-to manual” for the celebration of the Mass, the General Instruction of the Roman Missal Third Typical Edition, approved by Servant of God John Paul II in 2001 with its English translation appearing in 2003. I suspect that most Catholics would say that the choice of music for the entrance procession is easy: you just pick a hymn! Well, as good ol’ Gomer Pyle used to say on the Andy Griffith Show: “Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!” In fact, according to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, a hymn is actually the fourth and last option! Paragraph 48 of this General Instruction says the first choice for the “Entrance Chant” (or “Introit,” from the Latin meaning “entrance”) is “the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting.” The text of this entrance antiphon is what you find (in an abbreviated form, however) on page 3 of the Seasonal Missalette! For those of you who attend weekday Mass, it is the antiphon that we recite together at the beginning of the Mass as the priest makes his way to the presidential chair. Note that the text is almost always taken right from the Scriptures while occasionally it is from the prayers of the liturgy itself. Noteworthy, also, is that it is an antiphon. In other words, its structure includes a “body” or “verses” lead by the choir (or cantor) and a “response” or “refrain” that is repeated after each verse (by choir alone or by choir and congregation). In other words, it unfolds in a manner like that of the Responsorial Psalm with which we have become so familiar at Mass. The General Instruction goes on to say that the first choice for the music to which the text is set is taken from the Roman Gradual. This official music book contains the prescribed “proper” or “distinctive” music for each Mass throughout the entire Church year, namely, music of the entrance procession, the gradual (which may be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm), the offertory, and the Communion procession. The music of the Roman Gradual is exclusively Gregorian chant and arranged according to the Order of Music for the Mass, a set of guidelines first published with the approval of Servant of God Paul VI in 1972 and revised in 1986 under the authority of Servant of God John Paul II. Perhaps the following comparison will be of help to understand the import of the Roman Gradual. The Roman Gradual is to the music of the Mass as the Lectionary is to the Scripture passages proclaimed at Mass. The Lectionary is the official book containing the selections from the Scriptures to be read by the lector (and priest or deacon) at Mass during the course of the Church year. The passages from the Bible in the Lectionary are arranged according to the Order of Readings for the Mass, a set of guidelines first published in 1969 under Paul VI and revised in 1981 under John Paul II. The publication of the new Roman Gradual and Lectionary were part of the revision of the liturgical books according to the renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). Indeed, the introduction to the guidelines for the revision of the Roman Gradual noted that “the Second Vatican Council explicitly declared in its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy [114, 117] that the treasury of Gregorian chant – which Tradition has handed on right to our day – must be reverently preserved and put to proper use.” So for the four Sundays of Advent at Saint Peter we will select the Church’s first choice for the Entrance Chant taking it from the Roman Gradual.
END OF QUOTE

A problem throughout the USCCB document is taking things out of context, whether out of context with the document that contains the quote, or out of the greater context of what the Church has said in various places (before and since) on the topic. If there were any serious intention on the committee's part to promote Gregorian Chant, I would think they would have provided more specific direction on how to overcome the hurdles and emphasize that "pride of place" is not to be taken lightly. But this is just a baby step in that direction... maybe someday real guidance will come forth. I still think the authentic renewal of sacred music is going to come (is already coming) with the help of the Holy Spirit from the laity and a handful of supportive clergy without the help of the USCCB.

I think I'll wait until I can get my Hymnarius in front of me, but briefly, my understanding is that this volume was prepared with an overt purposes of jettisoning the work of the classical Solesmes approach. It has been the rallying cry of some for this reason, while others find it not useful. But I'm going to reserve further comment until I can give some examples.

I will confess from the outset that I am a newcomer to the scholarship of chant, so please forgive me for being a bit confused. I own a copy of the LH, and it contains hymns and the like to be used for the Divine Offices, rendered in square notation. Is the LH mentioned in STTL? (A section and paragraph reference would be helpful). At any rate, I wasn't aware that there was any controversy surrounding its publication (overt attempt to jettison the classical Solesmes style).

I am intrigued by the question of just how much tinkering with the original chants was done by Solesmes. A friend of mine who uses chant regularly at his church has been asking this question aloud for some time. I'm not sure where a good answer can be found. I'm also not sure just how much direct value can be attributed to the work of Solesmes from a scholarship standpoint. It would appear that in some camps to challenge anything that comes from Solesmes is tantamount to heresy.

I would also add that Fr. Columba Kelly, OSB, of St. Meinrad Archabbey has done extensive research in Gregorian chant, primarily in the areas of semiology and rhetoric, but also including work on translating several very important treatises on the interpretation of chant. It may be worth looking into his work, as some of the answers might be there.

As an aside, I would wonder why the Gregorian Missal for Sundays, published by Solesmes in 1990 wouldn't be more worth discussion as against the LH, given that is specifically contains the appointed chants for the Mass.

Gavin, that seems right to me.

On the Hymnarius, I really am not on solid ground here. I need to get my copy and dig up material on it. I should probably scratch what I said above, since it is based on memory and conjecture and nothing really solid. I too find it interesting that the Gregorian Missal employs all the classical approaches.

An example that comes to mind is "Conditor alme siderum." There has been disagreement between versions published in OCP, GIA, Adoremus, and some chant books as to whether the melody begins m-d-m-s-s-l-f-s or m-d-m-s-l-l-f-s. I think STL is saying if we're going to set a vernacular text for this tune (or by extension compose a choral piece based on it), that we should agree on a standard version.

While the statement about the Hymnarius deals with strophic hymns, the idea could be extended to other chants. I can also think of the contemporary song "Hold Us In Your Mercy" by Tom Conry (OCP). It is based on "Parce, Domine" and might not have been a bad way to sneek a chant melody into a contemporary praise service without causing too much upset. But, unfortunately, he tags on an extra line of music so he can include something about "justice like a river." Wouldn't it have been best if he had left the melody alone?

On troped Agnus Dei, just note that it can impede 'active participation'? After the second invocation, I'm never sure whether to sing 'have mercy on us' or 'grant us peace', so I just shut up. This fall, I had occasion to attend Mass several times at a parish where they do this. This place seemed to use four invocations instead of the traditional three.

I have nothing to add to your obviously well qualified discussion, except to say, That just knowing there are cantors out there, SOMEWHERE!, that actually use sacred music during the Mass, accompanied with an actual organ, and not a cocktail lounge piano, does me inestimable good. I have no formal musical training, except that I know sacred music when I hear it, and I just, to my horror and rage, read the usccb document you all have referenced. I need not comment further than you good people already have, except to say, that piece of trash is so inclusive and non-conclusive as to justify anything from chant to improv. I'll likely not contribute to this forum again, but rather, jus sit back and revel in your analysis and knowledge.

It's always been my experience in churches that use the tropic Agnus Dei that they sing the tropes then the last verse is ALWAYS "Lamb of God". It takes away any need for guesswork or counting - when they use the right text again, it's "grant us (your) peace." Of course you can get around this by just using it as is ;)

Well, folks, the National Pastoral Musicians, always a day late, dollar short and on the wrong side of the issues that matter, finally released (on Dec. 3) their "press release" for this document.

Here's what they said:

You may now view and download Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship (PDF), a new set of guidelines for music in the liturgy approved overwhelmingly (88%) by the U.S. bishops last month. The document had originally been proposed as a legislative document, but the bishops opted instead to issue it as an official statement of the USCCB, which still required a two-thirds vote of Latin rite bishops.

Sing to the Lord is longer (more than 250 paragraphs) and more comprehensive than its predecessors. It addresses some topics not covered in earlier documents, treats other areas more expansively, incorporates the norms of recent official liturgical documents, and draws on the experience of celebrating the current “ordinary” form of the Mass for the past thirty-seven years.

The USCCB is planning to publish the document together with the Directory for Music and the Liturgy. These official norms for approval of texts for singing at the liturgy were adopted by the U.S. bishops in November 2006 and are still awaiting confirmation from the Vatican.

(End quote)

Interesting that they consider 88% to be "overwhelming approval," and yet the bishops hesitated to vote on it as a legislative document requiring recognitio of the Holy See. Interesting, too, that we keep hearing about this "Directory for Music and the Liturgy", sent to Rome over a year ago now, and yet nobody that I know has a clue as to what's in it. If there's an unofficial version floating around that was leaked (as typically happens with other documents), I'd sure love to lay my hands on it. Somehow, this all makes me too nervous. We can only hope that the Curia has looked at that 2006 document and decided to send it back DOA.

Also.. concerning the "other things being equal" modification for Chant's pride of place... it seems to be truly bad writing to use this type of colloquialism in what was intended to be a legislative document. Wouldn't it have been a better idea to perhaps say "unless there are grave reasons in a particular situation which would make the use of chant detrimental to the celebration of the liturgy, Chant should be given pride of place in the liturgy"... or something of that sort... this would make it clear that the only valid reason for not using chant would be when it is truly not the best option FOR THE LITURGY, rather than introducing the "feelings" of the assembly into the equation. The problem with "other things being equal" as can be discerned from the above discussion, is that there is no real agreement on what that term actually means. By using it, it leaves the entire passage up to a variety of interpretations, which as we all know was the reason for using it in the first place!