Hamilton Diocese : Liturgical Instruction "Gathered Into One"
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,387
    No, Chonak, a bishop lawfully may not forbid what is permitted by the GIRM. But bishops have often been known to legislate contrary to the general law of the Church. (Of course, members of the Christian faithful may have recourse to the Apostolic See about such matters, but they rarely do.)

    That said, the two practices described by Andrew Malton, IMO, are not according to the GIRM either. The GIRM doesn't envision one entrance song before the procession begins and another after it begins. (The reason for two entrance songs is PURE RUBRICISM, plain and simple. Some folks on this forum think they are doing what the Church is asking for when they sing English propers. They are not. The Church has only asked that the treasury of Gregorian chants [in Latin] be preserved. There is absolutely NO post-conciliar document on the liturgy asking for vernacular "propers" to be created.)

    And singing the communion antiphon (in English?) without psalm verses and then jumping to a choir motet is also not what the GIRM says about the communion song.
    Thanked by 2chonak tomjaw
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,387
    BTW, Father (now Monsignor) Murray Kroetsch seemed to be a very nice fellow in my last dealings with him (24 years ago). Also, I considered him knowledgeable about music.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,387
    I'm just unsure how local authorities can so clearly contradict Vatican documents.

    Schönbergian, please indicate which Vatican document calls for the creation of musical "propers" in the vernacular? (Hint: you won't find one. The whole vernacular "propers" is a CMAA, not a Vatican, agenda. Had the Vatican called for vernacular propers, there would be a veritable cottage industry of propers-composers for every language known to humankind.)
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,499
    Andrew does show respect for Monsignor Kroetsch:

    Monsignor Kroetsch is also worthy of respect. If he is the author. He surely would not write this or anything else from a "personal" point of view, but because he commends it for the good of the local church.


    But this is how this directive is being interpreted:
    So, it is the Bishop's and the Chancellor's wish that at parish Masses in the Diocese of Hamilton:
    * only music from the CBW III and the "Celebrate in Song" book be used
    * (hence three Mass settings to choose from)
    * oh and the chants in the Missal but only those
    * absolutely no plainsong
    * the people must be able to sing everything all the time

    So no chant Masses, no sung propers, no choral music.


    So I guess that
    ...that the treasury of Gregorian chants [in Latin] be preserved

    will not happen in this diocese.

    I understand your point about a verse prior to the processional or at communion, however I don't understand the rest of it.

    The people can learn the ordinary from the Kyriale and at our church they've learned to love them. My son is studying in the Hamilton diocese and is proficient at singing the Gregorian propers. It is a shame he won't be able to help encourage others to sing (pray) them as well. I just don't see why chant is being silenced, which it seems to me is what is happening.
    Thanked by 1maestrodicapella
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    Well, Amen and amen to NO English propers! (Double meaning intended) A subtle diversion and distraction from what we are truly supposed to be doing.
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,387
    canadash, I'm not familiar with what goes on in Andrew's parish, and if I have mistakenly understood "English propers" when, in fact, they do the Gregorian (Latin) propers, then I apologize for getting it wrong on that score. (But I stand by what I wrote about the GIRM.) I need to read "Gathered into One" to get a clearer picture of what exactly is going on.
  • ronkrisman
    Posts: 1,387
    francis, before you go off thinking you and I are in complete agreement on vernacular propers, let me state clearly that I have no objection per se to the composition and singing of said propers. My objection is to people (some contributing comments on this forum) who claim that if parish X's pastor or music director does not allow vernacular propers, he (or she) is not allowing what the Church desires. The Church has never said it desires vernacular propers.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW MarkB Liam
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,499
    At our parish we do a mix.

    We use the English propers at Communion with the verses (our communion is very long) + a communion hymn and the Gregorian Proper at Offertory at the incensing. It works very well and the congregation loves it.

    The directive in Hamilton seems to be "absolutely no plainsong." I have come to really like the English propers. They are a lot better than most of the Communion hymns in the Celebrate in Song (which I've never seen in a parish).
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,157
    In our country there is at least an express permission in the GIRM for some vernacular propers (the entrance and communion antiphons, if taken from the Roman Missal). But that's not relevant for Canada.
    Thanked by 2rich_enough MarkB
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,933
    I use English Propers but they are not Gregorian and are Roman Missal Propers. I know, I know, the sky will fall and we will all die if we don't use Gregorian Propers and Old Solesmes chants, in Latin, of course, parroting the TLM to the greatest degree possible. I am a member of CMAA but will agree it has gone off the deep end on some of this.
  • Schönbergian
    Posts: 1,063
    Fr. Ron,

    I wasn't talking about the English Propers at all. I was referring to the complete ban on plainsong, which is clearly in contravention of the Church's directives that Gregorian chant be given primacy in the liturgy, let alone be merely permitted.
    Thanked by 1canadash
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,939
    Charles

    In honor of the battle cry of Catherine Tate's inimitable Aga Saga Woman ("Run for your lives, children; we're all going to die!"):

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOu9YbMw2qk
    Thanked by 2CharlesW mattebery
  • Andrew_Malton
    Posts: 1,156
    Above I've mentioned several results "on the ground" of the Bishop's Instruction. Of course all of them are anecdotal, and all of them are mediated through some local decison-enforcer, either a priest or a music director. Also as noted some of them results from "whispers" expressing the Bishop's or the Chancellor's or maybe the Liturgy Office's unwritten wish and direction. In any case: the Bishop's "lawful" authority isn't really the point.

    For clarity, the three practices which will not continue are:

    1) Sing the Entrance antiphon as in the Missal, alternating with psalm verse and Glory Be, before the beginning of Mass, that is, before the "commentator" says Welcome etc etc etc and announces the "Opening Hymn".

    2) Sing the Communion antiphon, as in the Missal, in English, alternating with psalm verses. Start when the priest receives, and end in time for a pause and then 2).

    3) Sing a (non-liturgical) "choir anthem", starting after the pause, and typically ending only after the purification of the vessel is finished and priest and people and servers are seated.

    Regarding (3) Fr @ronkrisman is quite right, this is not according to the rubrics at all, and also (since the texts and music in use were not liturgical) this is not traditional either. I'm glad it is stopping, but sorry that the DM won't choose to sing an anthem at the Offertory instead, which is what the Instruction and the rubrics prefer.

    Regarding (2) this seems not to be rubricism or even covered by the GIRM at all, because it's before Mass starts. Yes, I advocated for it because I want the actual introit texts and the Glory Be to be heard, and I suppose that attitude is rubricism of a kind. Or maybe just a pusillanimous traditionalism. Anyway were are not doing it any more.

    Regarding (3), I am sorry that a practice that has been valued and welcomed by most people, which is practical, and Scriptural, and reverent, and licit, is being ended for no good reason.

    Lastly, Father @ronkrisman, I wonder if I misunderstand you. It really seems as though you have asserted that the Mass proper is not to be sung. Or perhaps not to be sung other than in Latin chant. Perhaps we could take that astonishing videtur aside to another thread?
    Thanked by 2canadash irishtenor
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    fr krisman, with due respect (and acknowledgement that I often find your comments and presence here enlightening and helpful), your attack on the practice of vernacular propers is...(looking for something charitable here)...extremely misguided. And I know you are not poorly-informed, so what gives? There is no excuse for the comments you made on this thread. People, like me and many others on this forum, will be more puzzled than impressed with blanket condemnations like the ones you made here. You might want to say more reasonable things, or stick to talking to people who have no idea what they are talking about - maybe they would be impressed? Sorry if this is rude, but I have no sympathy for liturgical "experts" who go around saying boneheaded and patently false things. REPENT! :)

    First of all, by asking for settings of the Entrance and Communion antiphons in the Roman Missal EXPLICITLY in the GIRM, the Church does, absolutely, ask for vernacular propers. Any claim that the Church has no interest in vernacular propers is thus false. That was easy. And under a wider understanding of "proper" the Responsorial psalm, collect, and so forth are proper to the day and expected to be set to music. The odd one out (under this legalistic approach) would be the Offertory, since although the norms in the GIRM are the same for Entrance and Offertory, there is no official english translation of the offertory chant.

    So just by a simple reading of the current legislation (GIRM), we have explicit instruction for vernacular proper settings of the entrance and communion antiphon.

    By association (and considering the spirit of the law), it is completely reasonable to assume that other latin propers could be translated and sung at mass. If there is any disagreement, it is over which of the 4 categories given in the GIRM an English proper would fall under. Is it "the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting"? I would argue that "another setting" could include "another translation". But others, including many on this forum, would argue that an English proper is in category 3: "a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop". YMMV - either way, it is no stretch to acknowledge that the Church desires propers, and also wants vernacular music well-suited and connected to the day. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to connect the dots and move forward with various English propers projects. To say that this is some "CMAA agenda" never hinted at by the church is just plain silly. Sorry - try again, Fr. Krisman.
    Thanked by 3a_f_hawkins Schönbergian hilluminar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,369
    Musicam Sacram 5 Mar 1967
    33. The assembly of the faithful should, as far as possible, have a part in the singing of the Proper of the Mass, ...

    Notitiae 5 (1969) 406.
    Query: Many have enquired whether the rule still applies that appears in the Instruction on Sacred Music and the Liturgy, 3 Sep 1958 #33 "In low Masses religious songs of the people may be sung by the congregation, without prejudice, however, to the principle that they be entirely consistent with the particular parts of the Mass."

    Reply: That rule has been superseded, What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not "something", no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day ... amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought, and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass, not just singing during Mass.
    Thanked by 1hilluminar
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,369
    OTOH this calls for inspiration, not translation. But then it is not an official instruction, just a significant, and retrospective, comment. Perhaps Fr Krisman can find something more authoritative.
    The entrance and communion antiphons of the Missal were intended to be recited, not sung, and to inspire the creation of suitable songs in the vernacular.
    The Reform of the Liturgy, A.Bugnini p891
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    I worried I had been too harsh, firing off a comment between masses this morning. Then I went back and re-read Fr. Krisman's comment above:

    "The reason for two entrance songs is PURE RUBRICISM, plain and simple. Some folks on this forum think they are doing what the Church is asking for when they sing English propers. They are not. The Church has only asked that the treasury of Gregorian chants [in Latin] be preserved. There is absolutely NO post-conciliar document on the liturgy asking for vernacular "propers" to be created."

    Now I worry I was not harsh enough...As I said above, the GIRM explicitly mentions settings of the English Roman Missal antiphons for Entrance and Communion (in the USA). Fr. Krisman's statement is thus false (and easily shown to be so, at least in the USA where he is a priest).

    And I ran out of time to include Musicam Sacram Paragraph 33: "It is desirable that the assembly of the faithful should participate in the songs of the Proper as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings."

    Simple responses and other suitable settings. Thus, when the church talks about the propers she is clearly not just talking about the actual Latin chants in the Graduale (I'm also leaving aside for the moment the creation of the entirely new Graduale Simplex resource!). Here Musicam Sacram explicitly advises the composition of new proper resources for congregational use. Which by any reasonable interpretation would also allow for vernacular versions under the heading "other suitable settings."

    In addition, the church allows for "other suitable chants" at Mass. And even under the harshest, most legalistic reading of that phrase, clearly a vernacular proper would qualify (obviously more so than a hymn, which I would assume Fr. Krisman has no problem with). Under Fr. Krisman's reasoning, I could just as easily rule out the entire practice of vernacular hymnody, because there is no document explicitly asking for vernacular hymnody during Mass. However, a reasonable person would have to admit that we can "do what the church is asking for" by finding or composing "other suitable songs" - a category that would, even in the worst case scenario, include both vernacular hymnody and English propers.

    Finally, and a bit of a side note, Fr. Krisman needs to get out more if he thinks the only reason for having two entrance songs is PURE RUBRICISM (capitalized for maximum scariness). Many places use two songs because the length of the procession (and incensation of the altar) warrant it. In fact, at the largest churches and many special liturgies, two songs are often not even enough, and the hymn and antiphon may have to be supplemented by organ improvisation.

    Sorry to go on at length. But sometimes I run across comments so out of left field that I start to wonder what strange planet I've wandered into. It's very disheartening, especially coming from a priest who should (and I think does) know better.
    Thanked by 2hilluminar rich_enough
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,369
    Fr Krisman wrote:
    please indicate which Vatican document calls for the creation of musical "propers" in the vernacular
    The 1965 Missal in English includes vernacular propers, so when advocating the composition of music for the vernacular Mass, there is no need to say 'including the propers'.
    The OF Missals are to provide all that might need to be said by the celebrant, and therefor includes only the 'spoken' propers. Early editions of the OF Missale Romanum pre-date the revision of the Graduale (Romanum and Simplex), so could not include the sung antiphons even if they had wanted to make the volumes more bulky.
  • JaredOstermann
    Posts: 483
    The Roman Missal itself includes proper antiphons, and when it is translated into the vernacular: voila - vernacular propers! So the argument of Fr. Krisman (and I have to admit, certain people on the traditionalist side) would have to be that, of all sacred texts in existence, those propers in the Missal MUST NOT BE SUNG. They are "not meant for singing!" We can build on this dubious premise as we examine the Canadian GIRM (similar to the GIRM in the UK), which allows: " another chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, and whose text has been approved by the Conference of Bishops of Canada." The even more dubious conclusion: The "other chant" asked for by the Church must not use the GIRM antiphon text from the missal, even though said text has been approved by the bishops and is paired in the church's missal with the day and time (and is thus presumably suitable for the action, day, time, etc.).

    We have to accept dubious premise and more dubious conclusion in order to hold that sung vernacular propers are an "agenda" dreamed up by the CMAA.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,369
    JaredOstermann: I agree. AFAIK the reason for not singing these texts, and for the IGMR implicitly excluding them from singing is to protect the treasury of sacred music, and applies only to the Latin. In Latin the Church does not want, or need, the composition of new chant melodies. (This is not an absolute rule, very occasionally a new feast may require a new text and the adaptation of an existing melody).
    However as the Bugnini quote above says, they should lead to vernacular compositions. And in the USA where it is explicitly permitted, they have led to such settings.
  • francis
    Posts: 10,668
    So you all know why I ignore the arguments such as we have here:

    Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,

    Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.

    All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

    For they bind heavy and insupportable burdens and lay them on men's shoulders: but with a finger of their own they will not move them.

    And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad and enlarge their fringes.

    And they love the first places at feasts and the first chairs in the synagogues,

    And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi.

    But be not you called Rabbi. For one is your master: and all you are brethren.

    And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

    Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ.

    He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant.

    And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be humbled: and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.

    But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men: for you yourselves do not enter in and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.

    Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte. And when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.

    Woe to you, blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple is a debtor.

    Ye foolish and blind: for whether is greater, the gold or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?

    And whosoever shall swear by the altar, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gift that is upon it is a debtor.

    Ye foolish and blind: for whether is greater, the gift or the altar that sanctifieth the gift?

    He therefore that sweareth by the altar sweareth by it and by all things that are upon it.

    And whosoever shall swear by the temple sweareth by it and by him that dwelleth in it.

    And he that sweareth by heaven sweareth by the throne of God and by him that sitteth thereon.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you tithe mint and anise and cummin and have left the weightier things of the law: judgment and mercy and faith. These things you ought to have done and not to leave those undone.

    Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you make clean the outside of the cup and of the dish, but within you are full of rapine and uncleanness.

    Thou blind Pharisee, first make clean the inside of the cup and of the dish, that the outside may become clean.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful but within are full of dead men's bones and of all filthiness.

    So you also outwardly indeed appear to men just: but inwardly you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, that build the sepulchres of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the just,

    And say: If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

    Wherefore you are witnesses against yourselves, that you are the sons of them that killed the prophets.

    Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.

    You serpents, generation of vipers, how will you flee from the judgment of hell?

    Therefore behold I send to you prophets and wise men and scribes: and some of them you will put to death and crucify: and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from city to city.

    That upon you may come all the just blood that hath been shed upon the earth, from the blood of Abel the just, even unto the blood of Zacharias the son of Barachias, whom you killed between the temple and the altar.

    Amen I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.

    Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered together thy children, as the hen doth gather her chickens under her wings, and thou wouldst not?

    Behold, your house shall be left to you, desolate.

    For I say to you, you shall not see me henceforth till you say: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.





  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,369
    [ ]
  • maestrodicapella
    Posts: 126
    I think what is obvious here is that a poorly-informed and ill-conceived document whose sole purpose is to create unity, actually sows division, confusion and destruction.
    The bishop should put aside his own insecurities and ego and just do what the Roman Rite demands of him.
    The GIRM is a general instruction contained within a wealth of tradition. It is not a stand-alone document, it requires all the official books and documents since at least Pius X to create whole instruction. Many of these documents, especially those with individual national conference input are contradictory. Added to that the insistence that two separate things are in fact one and the same thing (EF & OF), the only unity that exists in liturgy is that fact that we all agree the liturgical books are a total shambles.
  • GambaGamba
    Posts: 539
    https://hamiltondiocese.prevueaps.com/jobs/76276.html

    Well, the post is still open for director of liturgy.....

  • WillWilkin
    Posts: 29
    I'd be inclined to agree more with the statement that most people are trying to do what is good for the Church, or at least what they believe. That said, I have no doubt that there are also many personal agendas which are being vied for in this debate.


    In my job as a solar electrician, I worked out of state a few weeks this summer, installing solar panels on the roofs of some Catholic schools. One morning the school was locked, blocking our access to the stairs we took to the roof, so I knocked on the rectory door to ask for a key. The priest invited me in for a cup of coffee, and while he was preparing it I asked "Father, are the noontime bells I hear rung here each day the Angelus Bells?" He smiled and said "Yes, you must have gone to Catholic school." I told him yes, from grades 1 through 5 [but I didn't mention the only reason I knew of the Angelus bells was because my son had just finished a wonderful week of Gregorian Chant camp under the direction of David Hughes, which included daily singing of the Angelus and which I took a Friday off from work to attend as a silent parent in the back of the room].

    Then I asked if there was a Latin Mass celebrated at the parish church, and he said something like "No, and it is unfortunate there has been something of a split between right wing and left wing in the church over this."

    We talked a few more minutes about the magnificent treasury of Catholic music built over the 2,000+ years of tradition of worship. Then, just as I was leaving, he said "I take it you are of the right wing in the church?" and I replied so quickly I was surprised (and happy) to hear what came out of my mouth: "All wings, Father."

    I think he liked that answer too.
    Thanked by 1canadash
  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,499
    Well, the post is still open for director of liturgy.....


    Casavant organist? You are being called!
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    Wow. Just wow.
  • Casavant Organist
    Posts: 800
    Haha. If only I had the willingness to do it...
Add a Comment