There's no mention of the propers, which is concerning. There seems to be an overall focus on "simplicity," which can mean any number of things. Unfortunately, I have often seen it used to indicate "not florid chant or anything high-church," so that is concerning too. The criterion "do the people like this" is a huge red flag and also a ridiculous criterion, IMHO. "The people don't like this" is another one of those tools used to destroy traditional liturgical music. Active participation is all well and good, but this document overall seems both to misunderstand what that means and also emphasize it in a way that is exaggerated. In my previous position, such phrases were used as code for "I don't like traditional liturgy, please stop." Perhaps I'm being overly pessimistic.

one of the problems with these tips is that they focus on the picture of each moment as a moment rather than the movie over time. Familiarizing people with music over time should take precedence over immediacy. One way to do that is to be comfortable with introducing new repertoire that the choir + intrepid singers in the pews will carry first and the rest of the congregation will become familiar with. It can help to allocate some choral singers to sing amid the middle of the pews to midwife this transition.

Since you solicited our thoughts:

• The Gibney Our Father needs to go, post haste. Why not at least do the missal chant that's very common? Or better still, a transcription of the actual Roman Tone? (here's one option: https://youtu.be/N95Mtd29Yy4)

• Regarding the communion hymn, technically the communion antiphon can begin being chanted as the priest consumes. We wait until the completion of the sacrifice to begin chanting (we chant the antiphon from Fr. Weber's book first, prior to any hymn). Frankly, a little silence won't hurt anyone. If you're communion hymns are in the style of the Gibney, then odds are, silence is a blessing for any soul trying to seriously pray for a moment.

• I'm very leery of "does the assembly like this song" being any sort of criteria for whether or not something is appropriate. Frankly, the congregation doesn't like MOST of what the missal ACTUALLY says. People are, on the whole, uneducated about liturgical matters, and very few people (including ministers) have ever read the GIRM or even touched a missal. Much like my opinion about your heart shouldn't count very much compared to your cardiologist who is a specialist, a random PiP's opinion shouldn't count nearly as much as mine, who specializes in liturgical music making and has actually read what VII, Trent, and the Missal actually have to say.

There's no doubt that catering to some degree of familiarity / popularity is OK; we all sing "O Come All Ye Faithful" on Christmas morning, but there are TONS of things that are VERY popular and yet are wholly inappropriate for Mass. We need not waste breath detailing them here. And conversely: there are tons of things that are practically unknown in various places, which are called for by the missal. These things need to be (re)introduced, and the chaff can be left by the wayside.

• Ah... "active participation". We are operating on two false assumptions here: 1.) that singing counts as being "active" (spiritually speaking, which is the primary intent) — it does not; many people sing stuff by wrote and do not engage with it mentally/spiritually at all and 2.) that just because you teach something before Mass, people will sing it. Neither of these things are the case. Yes, demoing music before Mass is good form, but it is not essential as an 11th commandment. Sometimes just using the melody as a prelude is sufficient. Sometimes, the music is very well known in broader christendom, so if the people at your congregation have ever watched a L&C service, or attended any other church, it will be vaguely familiar already. Also, some people don't take kindly to you getting up and teaching them music before Mass starts, if they are trying to pray.

• What constitutes "too complex"? Our parish sings Latin ordinaries during Advent and Lent, and I not-infrequently ask them to sing psalm refrains written in gregorian/square note notation and even refrains in Latin. Some congregations can sing full parts (this is rare within catholicism, but it does exist).

Also, why is singing (for example) Regent Square "too hard" but singing many of the St. Louis Jesuit arrangements not? Some of their songs (yes, songs) have a different rhythms on every single verse! to say nothing of some of the weird intervals they want you to sing.

Highest note is C/ C#? Who wrote this? Have they ever looked at any run-of-the-mill hymnal? D's are very common. Even Eb's. Yes, that's high, but setting a literal limit of C will immediately disqualify a third of any standard hymnal.

• "We don't judge the success of our efforts by asking, "How well did we sing today?" but rather, "How well did the congregation sing today?"

wrong. wrong, wrong, wrong.

Pius X specifically taught that there is a proper function for cantors & Scholæ and that their function is distinct from the congregation, and that it is proper for them to sing propers and more difficult music that is beyond the reach of the congregation. That means that it is perfectly fine for there to be music at Mass that the people don't sing, and that the music would be too difficult for them even if they wanted to.

Also, you never learn to do something better unless you attempt it with only limited success first. Are you somehow "failing" as a musician by introducing a new hymn that isn't sung with all the verve and vigor of "Immaculate Mary" on a Marian feast day? Poppycock, I say. It might be TWO YEARS before a congregation sings a new hymn well, after having heard it 8 times. The first 7 times weren't failures. They were pedagogic.

I'll grant the underlying premise that healthy singing by the congregation is a barometer for how well they know a thing, and if they know the thing better, they will likely sing it louder. But that's as far as I'm willing to go. Not very many people will sing "Tantum Ergo" (in latin) during the Holy Thursday procession to repose the Eucharist; however, it doesn't follow, therefore, that it shouldn't be done!

...would singing 'Happy birthday' count as participating at Mass on Christmas day?

This evokes a very sad memory - a parish I used to attend had a men's choir that actually sang this version of "Happy Birthday, Jesus!"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puaeGW19f-w

I rather agree with the “great amen” comment (that intros should indeed be short so it begins right away). One note is a bit restrictive, but as Steve Q mentions, intros that are as long (or longer) than the sung amen itself are gratuitous and unnecessary.

And as for “participation while they are waiting to receive” this bothers me a bit. People should be PRAYING during communion. This is why I chant the communion antiphon for as long as possible before beginning the communion hymn, which almost becomes a “post communion” hymn. This allows people to receive and pray leisurely without feeling like they are going to miss out on anything. It also relieves the apparent “obligation” to be singing when they should be praying. We are well aware that there is a crisis regarding belief in the true presence, so it seems prudent to allow space to a actually pray, rather than distracting people from connecting with our Lord because they are singing poorly crafted hymns which cast doubt on the true presence.

I have been told multiple times by parishioners and visitors alike that they love that they feel like they can actually pray at our mass. And this comes from people who otherwise wouldn’t care much for chant. Mercifully, our bishop also just instructed our diocese that there should be periods of silence at our masses during communion. It is for this very reason.

I’ll take this moment to point out that the document also says “Father will begin breaking the bread”. This is materially and spiritually incorrect. After the consecration it is not “bread” anymore. It is “Flesh” (capital F). This imprecise language needs to be rectified immediately, even if nothing else in the document changes.

Also, it’s funny to me that the document recommends a refrain hymn for communion but then also says that people shouldn’t need to use the hymnal to participate. This seems implied, no? What’s the point of a refrain if it is not to have something regularly repeated (which, one presumes, can be done by wrote after the first or second repeat).

Does the assembly need to be taught this song before mass? It is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL to teach new material before mass. It isn't fair to the assembly to deny them an opportunity to fully participate in the music of the mass. It is only respectful to introduce new music by teaching it before mass starts. This is also very important for the parts of mass. Remember, no music in the last five minutes before mass begins.

While my experiences with teaching before Mass have made me vow to never do it again. If needed a well designed improvisation as a prelude on the melody or new Mass parts works wonderfully. My question is with the last statement: Why not music five minutes before Mass begins? Silence for the people to pray? Half our congregation does not even arrive until the last five minutes before Mass begins! And given silence; you know those church friends will spark up their conversation they continued from the parking lot again.

Remember, no music in the last five minutes before mass begins.

I want to applaud what I hope is the intention here. Choirmasters sometimes rehearse their choir members right up until just before the bell has rung. Allowing the choir to make a transition from rehearsal to Mass is important.

The document was obviously written by someone who is ignorant of or does not care what the church has already said about the music to be used at mass. To start, the Church has already selected the criteria for the music to be used at mass. That criteria nowhere includes "Does the congregation like it?" Rather than popular music, Chant is to be given pride of place.

The one thing that the document got right was that the communion antiphon should being immediately after the celebrant receives communion.

My strong suggestion is that instead of the proffered document, whoever is setting policy should read through Sacrosanctum Concilium, the GIRM and Musicam Sacram.

Jon,

You could appeal to the Second Vatican Council's actual documents. You could put forward the thought that the choice of music shouldn't depend on who happens to attend Mass on a given Sunday. You could point out that how we measure what people wants will depend partly on who's counting. Squeaky wheels, and all that....

John, very well said!

John, I find your comment so thought provoking in the best way. I recently quipped to someone, “I like to treat my congregation like they aren’t idiots… they are capable of singing this music.” Yours is a much more elegant way of expressing what, in essence, was the driving force behind my quip.

The liturgy (as I understand it) is something much larger than ourselves, transcending space & time; it even pierces the veil between heaven and earth. This is why, it would seem to me, we should make ourselves subservient to it, rather than the other way around. That includes striving for better things with each new liturgy.

Our parish has had no particular desire (nor animosity, thank God) to learn much of the music that the pastor and I have collaborated to introduce. But four years later, a large contingent of our faithful can sing the seasonal marian antiphons nearly from memory, have learned Missa XVII really well, can sing the Our Father to the traditional Roman tone, and can even since Credo III in English. They also know all the chanted responses to the collects and canon (our pastor has whipped them into shape here in particular). I even have the school children singing the Marian antiphons at school masses, as well as anglicizations of certain offertories and communios from the Graduale Simplex. (I should note that it was the middle, aged teachers, who are skeptical of this, not the children, who take to it like ducks to water.)

One of the best things that has happened to me at this parish was after a parent nabbed me in the vestibule after mass about two years ago. She related to me that her family (of five children) had gone to another city to visit some family after Christmas. It was, shall we say, not the most august sacrifice and the music apparently left much to be desired. As they got back out to the car, the kids, unprompted, asked their mom and dad what the heck that was all about… this woman and her husband, not wanting to influence the words of their children, decided to ask them very gingerly, some open ended questions. Their response was what she desired to share with me, knowing that I would take great pleasure in it. They said that they didn’t like it… The music was very different from what I do at our parish, and they found themselves distracted and having difficulty praying… And mass felt very different (in a bad way) from what they were used to. While I was certainly sad (for the other parish) to hear this assessment, I simultaneously marveled at the fact, that these children, through natural osmosis, had come to expect a certain reverence in the liturgy. Their sensus fidelium was a true guide and friend, and they knew something was amiss without anyone having to tell them—because their lived experience at our parish taught them otherwise.

Just a few days ago I had a similar experience with two kids who are home visiting from college. They had sung in my schola, and had become accustomed to singing Gregorian chant and renaissance polyphony. They are now involved in trying to participate in, as well as coordinate, a Gregorian schola at their new collegiate church, and they were borderline frantic in their desire to stay as far away as possible (emphasis theirs, not mine) from those masses and musical groups that use guitars and saxophones and the like… they were invited to participate in those other groups, and didn’t want to touch them with a 10 foot pole.

All of this to say: that people are very much capable of assenting to richer fare, and can even acquire a taste for it, if given the opportunity. Treating a congregation like they are dumb and merely singing the same old tripe over and over and over again does no one any favors—least of all God.

I’ve checked in to my former parish through Livestream-everything I put in place has been dismantled in three months.

How sad a story this is, and how tragic that it is so often repeated. So many here (I speak of my own experience as well) have had this experience.

Leadership means being principled. There are way too many clergy, and musicians, interested only in their own comfort and popularity.

And why does being "just a parish" mean you somehow have to "settle"? I can understand not wanting to financially support full orchestral masses all the time — that's one thing — but to not support decent music writ large? I think some priests forget that our first duty to God is Latria in the Mass. That means we need to give it care, attention, and resources too.

As @ServiamScores said,

The liturgy (as I understand it) is something much larger than ourselves, transcending space & time; it even pierces the veil between heaven and earth. This is why, it would seem to me, we should make ourselves subservient to it, rather than the other way around. That includes striving for better things with each new liturgy.

And

I think some priests forget that our first duty to God is Latria in the Mass. That means we need to give it care, attention, and resources too.

This is exactly it. And what many don’t seem to understand. The solemn worship of the Church is meant to form us rather than we form it. It should teach us how to relate to and think about God, and this is done by signifying and magnifying His holiness through presenting the best of what human hands can offer.

As anyone in the ancient world would have understood, worship is, at its core, sacrifice. The Scriptures show us how to do this — the magi bringing gold frankincense and myrrh, the penitent woman anointing Christ’s feet with costly perfume, the widow giving all she had (even if it is only two coins.) What we need to bring to the liturgy as musicians is essentially musical gold and perfume. People misunderstand, even if innocently, that the music is intended for them as a secondary significance— the primary significance is that it’s intended for God, and that it has a higher duty of approximating his transcendent holiness than approximating their musical sweet tooth.

That is why we choose Bach and Palestrina over Haugen and Schutte.

John, have you written articles on this topic? You are very articulate on it

One note about the "Great Amen": it doesn't seem to be an official concept in the Church's liturgical books.

While some writers have said impressive-sounding things about a big noisy Amen in early-church practice in some places, the present-day Roman Missal doesn't call the Amen after the Eucharistic Prayer "great"; and the music proposed for it in the Ordo Cantus Missae (and the Roman Missal and the Graduale Romanum) is just three notes.

And this is in keeping with the general Roman "style" of liturgy: that is, a sobriety and self-restraint which is different from the more florid and exuberant language of the Byzantine liturgy (though their amens seem to be pretty simple too in my experience).

@JonDeuling Chapter 6 of Sacrosanctum Concilium address sacred music. Paragraph 116 addresses Gregorian chant and polyphony.

I'd add that in "Sing to the Lord", 2007 by USCCB , sections 72 -80 also reinforce the "pride of place" of Gregorian chant.

" Gregorian chant is uniquely the Church’s own music. Chant is a living connection
with our forebears in the faith, the traditional music of the Roman rite, a sign of communion with
the universal Church, a bond of unity across cultures, a means for diverse communities to
participate together in song, and a summons to contemplative participation in the Liturgy."

Thanks everyone! The big meeting day is here, tonight at 7 pm. Please pray for us, right here and now so you won't forget :)

Prayers. I hope this is not like Daniel going into the lion den.

Daniel had some competent and powerful backing. Most musicians don't.

Had to look it up…

But the prince of the kingdom of the Persians resisted me one and twenty days: and behold Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I remained there by the king of the Persians. 14 But I am come to teach thee what things shall befall thy people in the latter days, for as yet the vision is for days. 15 And when he was speaking such words to me, I cast down my countenance to the ground, and held my peace.

Daniel 10:13 -15