Does “Tra le Sollucitudine” actually ALLOW Organ Alternatim?
  • John_F_ChurchJohn_F_Church
    Posts: 52
    It was my previous understanding, given the part of the motu proprio that specifically deals with the organ, that it implicitly forbade the practice of organ alternatim.

    BUT….

    TLS III:8

    “As the texts that may be rendered in music, and the order in which they are to be rendered, are determined for every liturgical function, it is not lawful to confuse this order or to change the prescribed texts for others selected at will, or to omit them either entirely or even in part, unless when the rubrics allow that some versicles of the text be supplied with the organ, while these versicles are simply recited in the choir. However, it is permissible, according to the custom of the Roman Church, to sing a motet to the Blessed Sacrament after the Benedictus in a solemn Mass. It is also permitted, after the Offertory prescribed for the mass has been sung, to execute during the time that remains a brief motet to words approved by the Church.”


    This seems to reference legislation given before Trent, which allowed for organ alternatim but mandated the first verse always be sung and that certain verses taken up by the organ must be quietly recited by the choir (Which can be read about here: https://mdpi-res.com/d_attachment/religions/religions-05-00751/article_deploy/religions-05-00751.pdf?version=1407924940 ) The one text absolutely forbidden to do this with was the Creed.

    We may debate over whether the practice is prudent, tasteful, spiritual, etc… but if it was actually allowed for by none other than Pius X, can any of us say it constitutes an actual “liturgical abuse?”

    Thanked by 5tomjaw Nisi M. Jackson Osborn LauraKaz JonathanKK
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    The Ceremonial of Bishops mentions alternatim practice in book 1, ch. 28, no. 9, even in the 1948 edition, which is decades after TLS, but I have come across this idea elsewhere that the motu proprio suppressed the practice of supplying versets on the organ. I recall seeing a blog post sometime in the past couple of years, which I didn't actually read, about "the organ having its own voice" liturgically. As for the Creed, you're correct that the organ cannot substitute for alternate phrases of the chant, but if I'm not mistaken, there was an SRC decree at some point saying it was lawful for the organ to play between phrases as long as the complete text was sung. (Why anyone would want to do so is another question.) Anybody have a searchable PDF of Hayburn?
    Thanked by 2John_F_Church tomjaw
  • Jeffrey Quick
    Posts: 2,048
    searchable PDF of Hayburn

    This year's great and probably nonimplementable (legally) idea. The index in Hayburn is not helpful.
  • davido
    Posts: 874
    I would surmise that the passage John highlights above is a nod to the French, tolerating a practice that was already longstanding and likely to be continued despite pronouncements from Rome

    Many French diocesan uses (especially Paris) contained rubrics permitting or mandating organ alternatim. In the 19th century, as the ultramontane movement pressured the French dioceses to abandon their uses in favor of the Roman books, the alternatim practice was eliminated, as it was seen as a decadent accretion not found in the usage of that font of the faith, the church of Rome and the Roman pontiff.

    However, since no rites really exist anymore that have rubrics dictating alternatim practice, I don’t think the above quote can be used to justify it.

    For those wishing to use alternatim practice, I suggest adopting an even older Catholic liturgical attitude (widely adopted in Novus Ordo land):
    do whatever the heck you want.
    Thanked by 1John_F_Church
  • madorganist
    Posts: 906
    widely adopted in Novus Ordo land
    And unfortunately rather widely adopted in trad land too, sad to say.
    Thanked by 1CharlesW
  • Chris Garton-Zavesky
    Posts: 6,902
    For those wishing to use alternatim practice, I suggest adopting an even older Catholic liturgical attitude (widely adopted in Novus Ordo land):
    do whatever the heck you want.

    widely adopted in Novus Ordo land
    And unfortunately rather widely adopted in trad land too, sad to say.


    1) This is the result of the fall, not a result of being traditional in thought.
    2) Where it is a good thing, rightly nurtured, instead of the result of concupiscence, there's nothing to correct. There are, as St. Francis de Sales reminds us, saints in all sorts of walks of life. Dominicans are not Franciscans are not Benedictines are not Augustinians are not Carmelites, but these orders and their unique practices aren't errors needing to be corrected. OTOH, made-up Canons of the Mass and Un-necessary Ministers of Holy Communion, girl altar boys, a Missal which has so many options it's nearly impossible to violate the rubrics .... and others, are not good things and should be eliminated.
    Thanked by 2John_F_Church LauraKaz
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 256
    There are places in the Novus Ordo where an alius cantus aptus could include a hymn for which alternatin parts were written. For example, I could see at Easter a small choir with a skilled organist singing Ad Coena in alternatim with the versets by Titelouze:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipfBc_IGlC4
    Thanked by 2John_F_Church CharlesW
  • John_F_ChurchJohn_F_Church
    Posts: 52
    @davido

    since no rites really exist anymore that have rubrics dictating alternatim practice


    This is a good point. Where are the actual so called rubrics allowing for it?

    But alternatim wasn't merely a French practice. And even if France eventually did adopt Roman liturgical books, the practice still didn't die out -- consider Flor Peeters and Maurice Durufle still writing versets.

    But again, conceding your point, there doesn't seem to be any legislation extant actually allowing for it.

    For my own practice, for texts intrinsic to the Mass (the Propers and the Ordinary), I wouldn't dare try organ alternatim. But for extra-liturgical texts, such as using hymns for offertory and communion, I have sometimes done something akin to it. I don't see how this would be a violation of anything, since no properly liturgical texts are being altered.
  • davido
    Posts: 874
    In related liturgical mysteries, I have yet to find where exactly Trent outlawed tropes.
    My suspicion is that rather than being outright banned, they were lost to the liturgical conservativism of Rome, de facto outlawed by the widespread adoption of the Pius V books, in which there were precious few sequences and no other tropes at all. (I also wonder if the Roman Curia were conservative, or just too irreligious to make the time for tropes and extra prayers.)
    Perhaps one could trace the push throughout history for “one, unique form of the Roman rite,” showing how it quashed the flowering of the liturgical arts outside of Rome.
    Thanked by 4M. Jackson Osborn John_F_Church a_f_hawkins LauraKaz
  • davido
    Posts: 874
    By “do whatever the heck you want” I don’t mean disregard the rubrics completely. But I do think it is natural for there to be some variety in the manner of Catholic worship from place to place. This is easily seen in the concrete arts, architecture painting, church decoration, vestments, etc. and not just in the heterodox modernity of the 20th century.
    Considering the huge variety built in to the new mass, many times allowing for pure novelties, it seems that practicing time honored methods of variety - which exemplify beauty and great piety - should not be looked at askance.
    Thanked by 6CharlesW M. Jackson Osborn John_F_Church a_f_hawkins tomjaw LauraKaz
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    @davido
    The ancient Missal of the Canons of Rome that formed the basis of the Trent Missal, was like many Missals in Southern Europe, it had few sequences and no Tropes. The Trent Missal was not imposed on anyone, it was taken up eventually by most of Europe. N.B. the Sarum Missal was never given up, but still fell in to disuse...

    More on the History of the Trent reform here,
    https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2021/07/s-pius-v-and-traditionis-custodes.html
    https://liturgicalnotes.blogspot.com/2014/12/s-pius-v-originally-posted-february-2014.html
    Thanked by 2madorganist John_F_Church
  • ServiamScores
    Posts: 2,724
    I have used alternatum in one context only, and that is to extend a work to make it better fill liturgical time. In my case, every year I improvise a series of versets in alternatum while the choir chants the Veni Creator Spiritus during confirmation, while the confirmands are actually being confirmed. This whole process can take quite a while, so improvising and adding organ commentary between the verses works really well. This isn’t true alternatum, of course, but the effect is very similar.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw John_F_Church LauraKaz
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    I also wonder if the Roman Curia were conservative, or just too irreligious to make the time for tropes and extra prayers.

    I don't think we know why Pius V chose this impoverished form of Mass in 1570. Trent did not ask for it, in Session XXII they were clearly deeply concerned about the congregation while 1570 is not. And we don't AFAIK have anything on what the commission under Cdl Sirletto actually produced.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,372
    @tomjaw I would contrast the gentle tone of the interpretation you cite from Fr Hunwicke with the text of Quo primum
    4. This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding.

    5. All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure.

    6. We specifically command each and every patriarch, administrator, and all other persons or whatever ecclesiastical dignity they may be, be they even cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, or possessed of any other rank or pre-eminence, and We order them in virtue of holy obedience to chant or to read the Mass according to the rite and manner and norm herewith laid down by Us and, hereafter, to discontinue and completely discard all other rubrics and rites of other missals, however ancient, which they have customarily followed; and they must not in celebrating Mass presume to introduce any ceremonies or recite any prayers other than those contained in this Missal.

    I have added paragraph numbers for convenience, and empasised a few words. To say that the 1570 Missal was not imposed on anyone does not match paragraph 6.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen hilluminar
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,704
    @a_f_hawkins
    I notice that paragraphs 4 and 6 do not agree...
    Fr. Hunwicke is effectively fluent in Latin, he translated the passages himself. He does note the usual latin used, and I am happy to follow his translation.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    If I remember right, Peter K posted an explanation about this: the churches using rites less than 200 years old were required to use the Roman rite and give up all those other missals, some of which were theologically suspect.

    The churches using rites over 200 years old (i.e., supported by long-standing custom and presumed to be orthodox due to their age) could switch to the Roman rite if they so wished; but if they chose to do so, they would have to switch entirely and not preserve elements of their older practice.
    Thanked by 1ServiamScores
  • Bombarde16
    Posts: 116
    I find that the distinction between extra-liturgical texts (and music) and the Ordinary & Propers of the Mass to be a very important distinction here when considering alternatim.

    In my own practice with my choirs, I typically will do so at the prelude (A Solis Ortus Cardine for Christmas Midnight, perhaps...) or at the offertory or communion. Nonetheless...

    I have a question regarding the practice of Alternatim in the context of the office:

    We are all, I'm sure, familiar with the many many many versions of organ verses for the magnificat by so many organists, as well as the practice of choral versets juxtaposed with chanted verses..

    In the NO, for a parish celebration of Vespers on Sundays and various Solemnities, is there a manner in doing this that keeps in line with the relevant literature? I realize this is a giant grey area, especially since it takes on more of a spirit of devotion with the laity rather than needing to (necessarily) fulfill an obligation for clerics only... (yes I know that the Divine Office is far greater than a simple devotion- apart from the Mass it is the official and fullest form of prayer of the Church: I pray it as faithfully as I can each day.)

    I'm just curious if there is a manner in which one could, perhaps, help to bring this music out of the organ concert hall and back into the church in its proper place? (I'm just spit-balling with this...)

    I welcome your thoughts and ideas!
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 543
    I'd imagine that one could play the versets in their various places but then also have the choir sing that which historically would have been replaced? It would certainly lengthen things, but with the text not being replaced I can't see how it would be problematic, rubrically.
Add a Comment