Pater Noster
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 278
    So talking to my local dm we got in a spat over use of the Pater Noster as a choral work within the frame of the Mass. So what are your takes on the matter and besides a handful of motets on CPDL why isn’t it more of a common composition amongst composers like the Ave Maria is?
  • trentonjconn
    Posts: 772
    why isn’t it more of a common composition amongst composers like the Ave Maria is?


    I'd imagine that this is because it was/is sung by the celebrant alone in the EF. The Ave appears in the propers and whatnot.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Abbysmum francis
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 278
    So then certain motets by the likes of Pslestrina or J. Handl Gallus are ex missa??…..
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • AdteBeateJoseph3
    Posts: 69
    You could argue (although not sung) that the Domine non sum Dignus has been set by composers although it is part of the Mass. A setting of the Pater Noster can be particularly effective during Lent such as Passion Sunday where the Communion antiphon is Pater si non (Father of it is possible, take this chalice away…)
    The one Mons. Van Nuffel wrote is one of my favorite settings.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen Abbysmum sdtalley3
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    The problem with using certain texts is a motet is that, just like there isn’t a rule against using tricycles per se, you don’t set the solo texts where you would take away from their nature by repeating them.

    Repeating something that is not sung independently (in the case above, it is part of two gospel pericopes in addition to its recitation) is not the same. Nor to me is repeating the same or similar text in polyphony when you’ve just sung the Gregorian proper the same as trying to sing the Pater noster as a motet. I’ve heard it done. Don’t do it. I would say the same thing for the NO where the prayer is sung by all.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw sdtalley3
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 228
    Right, wouldn't it be kind of like singing a Gloria at communion? That text already forms part of the mass elsewhere. It doesn't make much sense to me.
    Thanked by 5tomjaw trentonjconn sdtalley3 MatthewRoth Marc Cerisier
  • davido
    Posts: 1,150
    I think people get too uptight about it. Pater Noster is the most ubiquitous Christian prayer. How could it ever be inappropriate?
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    Because it’s already in the Mass, and we just explained how it would be inappropriate. This kind of comment drives me bonkers.
    Thanked by 2Marc Cerisier tomjaw
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 201
    Pater Noster is the most ubiquitous Christian prayer. How could it ever be inappropriate?


    Certainly nothing wrong or inappropriate about singing it at Mass, and I agree with the poster above; the Van Nuffel is perhaps its most beautiful setting. That being said, when we sang a polyphonic 'Pater Noster' at the Sacred Music Symposium the professors suggested that large Renaissance polyphonic settings of the Pater Noster would have (most likely) been sung as part of the divine office. Evidently before the 1950s, each part of the divine office started with a Pater and Ave.
    Thanked by 2StimsonInRehab sdtalley3
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    Yes but those were silent. I don’t know what was happening unless they just didn’t care about the rubrics.
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 606
    Certainly nothing wrong or inappropriate about singing it at Mass

    I would have to disagree. It’s a unitive prayer. It should be sung in the Church’s universal language, Latin, in the ever ancient and universal chant form. I believe the same about the Creed. I am still waiting for the reforms of VII on liturgical music to be implemented.
    Thanked by 1Chant_Supremacist
  • davido
    Posts: 1,150
    Because it’s already in the Mass, and we just explained how it would be inappropriate. This kind of comment drives me bonkers.


    I think people get too uptight
    Thanked by 1StimsonInRehab
  • StimsonInRehabStimsonInRehab
    Posts: 1,961
    The Stravinsky setting is pretty good, too. Hoping to teach that to my choir soon. Probably to sing either on Trinity Sunday or for Confirmation.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Dixit_Dominus_44
  • Dixit_Dominus_44
    Posts: 201
    Because it’s already in the Mass, and we just explained how it would be inappropriate. This kind of comment drives me bonkers.


    In the 'TLM' (sometimes called the 'Tridentine' Rite, although I hate that term) this type of thing happens all the time. For instance, the 1st Sunday of Lent has the same text for Offertory and Communion but completely different musical settings for those same words. On the Ember Saturday of Advent, the same text (Éxcita, Dómine, poténtiam tuam, et veni, ut salvos fácias nos) is repeated after the Epistle but set to *different* musical notes, literally just a few minutes later. On the feast of St. John the Evangelist, the same text is used for Gradual and Communion, but the musical settings (the musical notes) are different. The same is true of the Nuptial Mass (“pro sponso et sponsa”) with regard to Ecce sic benedicetur, which is given two different musical settings in the space of a few minutes. The same happens with Réspice Dómine in testaméntum tuum on the 13th Sunday after Pentecost. Ascension Thursday is yet another example: compare its Offertory to its Alleluia and you'll see they are identical. The same is true of 'Missa Suscepimus' … etc.

    For the feast of 29 June (SS. PETER & PAUL), the Gradual is repeated a few minutes later as the verbatim Offertory, and the Alleluia verse is repeated verbatim as the Communion. This happens quite frequently in the Tridentine Rite; not sure about the Novus Ordo.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 278
    I’m personally of the opinion that yes in the “Tridentine Rite, Vetus Ordo, Extraordinary Form, etc” pick your term how you will, that just because it’s done by the priest exclusively aside from the congregation responding with Sed Libera Nos a Malo, that an artistic rendition shouldn’t be excluded from those times that allow for polyphonic music to be sung, and if anything would reinforce the point of which the prayer is particular for the liturgy readings of the Sunday. I don’t buy the whole “repetition thing” as there’s many instances of the Church being repetitive.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • Chant_Supremacist
    Posts: 228
    In all fairness we ought to distinguish between a text that's part of the ordinary and has a fixed place and function in mass, and a proper text.

    The Pater Noster is interesting/exceptional because it's a ubiquitous prayer, so while it's a little comparable to singing the Gloria elsewhere in mass, it's also a little different. I'm not going to claim it's an abuse, but I think singing it elsewhere in the mass would confuse or detract from its meaning within the context.

    As far as the run of membership here goes I haven't considered myself particularly strict, liturgically 'high', or uptight, so I'm learning things about myself here.
    Thanked by 2sdtalley3 tomjaw
  • sdtalley3sdtalley3
    Posts: 278
    The issue for me is that the Church doesn’t strictly say “No” to an additional rendering of the prayer, elsewhere and I’m most sure composers of past didn’t just do their practice because they felt like it. Now I’m not going to touch anything that pertains to the Liturgy as it is, most of all my work is extra.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,210
    In the 'TLM' (sometimes called the 'Tridentine' Rite, although I hate that term) this type of thing happens all the time. For instance, the 1st Sunday of Lent has the same text for Offertory and Communion but completely different musical settings for those same words. On the Ember Saturday of Advent, the same text (Éxcita, Dómine, poténtiam tuam, et veni, ut salvos fácias nos) is repeated after the Epistle but set to different musical notes, literally just a few minutes later. On the feast of St. John the Evangelist, the same text is used for Gradual and Communion, but the musical settings (the musical notes) are different.


    Because you start off my responding to me, @Dixit_Dominus_44: I sing the five propers on a regular basis, sometimes multiple times a week. That is abundantly clear from my posts here.

    The 1st Sunday of Lent is an unusual exception. We do not change the source of the propers on that day, because the devil quotes psalm 90.

    But it is obviously different to reuse a text during the propers, something which is handed down to us, and chants which we must execute in order to sing the Mass as we must do. Taking a text that one chooses of his own volition, ornamenting as it is pleasing to the composer, and singing it to fill in a part of the Mass where music may be freely chosen is yet another thing entirely.

    @davido stop it, please. At this point you are being rude to me in particular and not especially engaging with me but are essentially trolling.
  • Xopheros
    Posts: 71
    An ingenious example how the Pater noster can be utilized for a motet meant to be used at mass is Guerrero's setting of "Quis vestrum habebit amicum". The motet is bitextual and the Pater noster is used as a cantus firmus in the tenor part.

    I have not found the text in the Graduale Triplex, but the Cantus database lists it for Rogation Monday (Fer. 2 in Letaniis). The interspersal of the Pater noster thus matches the feast and the text of the proper ("petite et accipietis") by not only inviting the faithful to pray, but by also actually praying the prayer Jesus himself has taught.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen sdtalley3 francis
Add a Comment