Music for Rite of Baptism

Joseph_M

Our newborn son will be baptized in a couple weeks. We will have the Rite of Baptism after Mass with a priest who will chant everything. My colleague will be playing the organ and I have a soprano lined up to cantor. Two-thirds of the people that will attend are musically inclined and will sing. I'd love to hear recommendations for what you would program for music for this occasion. We could also have prelude/postlude instrumental or sung.

I included the lineup for my older son that we used last year with different resources available.

Gathering/Reception of the Child: Be Born Anew, O Child of God (Old Hundredth)
Procession to Ambo for Liturgy of the Word: Psalm 85:7, 8, 9ab (set to psalm tone)
Acclamation: Celtic Alleluia
Song after homily: I Want to Walk as A Child of the Light (*This was sung at our oldest son's funeral in the past, so we included it but I'd like to replace it this time around)
Procession to Font: Psalm 23 (Mode 2)
Blessing over Baptismal Water/Acclamation: Chant
Acclamation after baptism: "Blessed be God who Chose you in Christ"
Conclusion/procession back to altar: "God who at the Font.." (ST THOMAS)
Song of Praise: Magnificat (Chepponis)

Let me know what you would add/modify to be a little closer to the sacred music ideal. Latin would be acceptable too. This is totally out of the norm in our area for there to be any music/singing at a baptism, but I think it's what the Church envisions as the preferred option.

trentonjconn

I think it's what the Church envisions as the preferred option.

I'm not trying to be the turd in the punch bowl here, but traditionally there wouldn't really be any singing or music at all at a baptism, at least as far as I'm aware. Happy to be corrected.

unknownadversary

The ritual book prefers the full rite be used where possible, and songs may be sung at various points, including Entrance, Procession before the Liturgy of the Word, Response after First Reading of Scripture, Hymn after Homily, Profession of Faith, Acclamation after Baptism, Baptismal Song, and Recessional.

I didn't find any acclamation before the gospel readings, though.

a_f_hawkins

iBreviary suggests 6 options for the acclamation before the Gospel.
https://www.ibreviary.com/m/preghiere.php?tipo=Rito&id=103
It also has quite a number of short hymns, and choices for a short litany, but no tunes.

Joseph_M

I can't remember why the priest and I decided to do an Alleluia before the Gospel. Maybe we had more than one reading and that was placed in between. I'll tell you it was such a headache to sort through this the last time, and those short Acclamations and Hymns they list are nowhere to be found from my research. I think I tried to match them with corresponding hymns.

The passages listed in nos. 186-194 and 204-215 may be chosen, or other passages which better meet the wishes or needs of the parents. Between the readings, responsorial psalms or verses may be sung as given in nos. 195-203.

MatthewRoth

@trentonjconn is correct. Music is, like, allowed in the new ritual, but why? If you are set on this…then do what pleases you. I can hardly think of anything that I would want to do less as a church musician than sing at the baptism of anyone, or arrange for music even if I don’t have to do anything, doubly so if it’s my own child.

Joseph_M

@MatthewRoth it's a sacrament meant to be celebrated communally. Our Archdiocese seems to support the idea that there should, in fact, be singing and music. We have music for every other sacrament, so why would one neglect this, if possible, for their child's baptism? I'm in a position where I know the option exists, can create the necessary resources, and coordinate everything so it's executed well. I'll joyfully put in the extra work to celebrate this sacrament for my child. My perspective on the sacrament might be a little skewed as our oldest son was stillborn and we were unable to baptize him, so we planned a funeral mass at Church with 100 family and friends present with music (organist/cantor/worship aid) like any other funeral. Thankfully, the Church gives families the options for these moments, and at the end of the day it's about the actual sacrament.

Now, I can agree I wouldn't want to make this an every Sunday occurrence, mainly because I'm just part-time and have a family to get home to after Sunday Masses.

I attached a pdf from the AOC. Page 4 addresses the Why have music at baptism?

Our Archdiocese has some helpful resources found here: https://resources.catholicaoc.org/offices/divine-worship-and-sacraments/sacraments-resources/childrens-baptism

MatthewRoth

Because frankly it’s a lot of work, the norm is for baptisms to be within the Mass (this is hardly traditional, but the NO inserts all of the sacraments except penance into the Mass) so there is no need for more music, and in most cases it’s a lot of work for no reward. (And a hymn after the homily? Oh dear— that is very Protestant and even the most accommodating would be hard pressed to allow this.)

That the liturgy be sung as a norm does not extend to baptisms. Sorry. This is insane drivel cooked up by people with no or very limited pastoral experience that also completely fails to consider that this is a burden on already overworked music directors and musicians.

It’s not even ideological (although I think that JP2 conservatives would be the most likely to embrace music at baptisms). Liberals, when forced to baptize outside of Mass, are not necessarily going to require a full liturgy of the Word with or without music!

Chant_Supremacist

@Joseph_M Congratulations on the birth of your son.

The following is not a personal comment at all. I do find 9 songs for a baptism to be outlandish. The focus on this has probably grown as fertility rates plummeted, parishes aged, and baptisms transformed into one of the main occasions that cultural Catholics show up at church.

It's understandable that parents want to make it special, of course. If I were asked to lead something this extensive I think I would ask for stipends.

fcb

the norm is for baptisms to be within the Mass

If by "norm" you mean legislative norm, this is not true. In fact, the Order of Baptism of Children, while stating why one might well want to include baptisms at Sunday Mass, also says "this should not happen too often" (III.9). So, no, not the norm.

Also, the rite mentions singing

at the start of the celebration (§35--"if circumstances permit")
at the procession to the place where the liturgy of the word is celebrated (§42--"if circumstances permit" )
at the responsorial psalm between the readings (§44)
after the homily (§46--I know shocking, isn't it)
at the procession to the font (§52--"if it can be done with dignity")
after the profession of faith (§59--"if circumstances suggest...a suitable liturgical song...may be sung")
after each baptism (§60--"it is appropriate for the people to sing a short acclamation")
during the procession to the sanctuary (§67--"it is desirable that a baptismal canticle be sung")
after the final blessing (§71--with the Magnificat suggested)

It's fine to think that baptisms don't ever need music (just like it's fine to think Masses don't ever need music), but I see no reason to treat the OP like he's a dolt for thinking otherwise, particularly when the official ritual book of the Church seems to agree that it is possible and in some cases desirable.

MatthewRoth

If by "norm" you mean legislative norm, this is not true. In fact, the Order of Baptism of Children, while stating why one might well want to include baptisms at Sunday Mass, also says "this should not happen too often" (III.9). So, no, not the norm.

It is the default though. And it shouldn’t be within the Mass at all. But here we are.

In fact aside from trad land (or trad-adjacent land) I only know of people who have a (too) close relationship with a priest (the pastor or otherwise) who do this for their children. Otherwise they submit to whatever schedule the parish has including baptisms on one Sunday of the month. But that also means, even if it’s usually outside of Mass, no one is fussing with music or readings.

He asked for our opinion and stated that he thinks that the church finds it normative when there’s some hedging in that direction but nothing definitive since, as even the compilers knew, it has absolutely nothing to do with anything practiced before the end of the last century. No one is treating him like a dolt, and Trenton even acknowledged that the point might be contentious and interpreted as insulting. But I also write here in replying to threads knowing that they will get dug up by others later even if no one adds new comments (sometimes the future reader is myself!).

But to your point: it is decidedly not fine to think that all Masses should be low Masses. Even if sung Mass as the main form of Mass was only observed somewhat rarely in the past, and if today in a questionable way, the norm is that Mass itself is to be sung and that it may be ornamented by music as circumstances dictate according to the day, the season, and the occasion. Vatican II, Musicam sacram, and the GIRM are clear enough that I think someone who says “all Masses should be simply read without music” is wrong. Now, I understand the preference. I believe that a 7 or 7:30 Mass (and certainly earlier) on Sundays and HDOs, to say nothing of weekdays except on special occasions where you have one and only one Mass, should be free of music (and I like the organ at low Mass!).

fcb

I guess I think we need a little clarity on what establishes a norm. If it is the current liturgical books, then baptism without music is just as much outside the norm as Mass without music, given that the current liturgical book for infant baptism describes singing at various points as "desirable" and to be done "if possible." Plus there is the statement in Musicam sacram 42: "The Council laid down in principle that whenever a rite, in keeping with its character, allows a celebration in common with the attendance and active participation of the faithful, this is to be preferred to an individual and quasi-private celebration of the rite. It follows logically from this that singing is of great importance since it more clearly demonstrates the 'ecclesial' aspect of the celebration." So there might be good reasons why you don't have music at baptisms, such as lack of musicians etc., but it doesn't seem to be the de jure norm, though it may be the de facto one. Which I guess means that I don't actually think it's fine to think that baptisms should never have music; it's at least an ideal we should strive for.

MatthewRoth

But only if you’re completely cut off from the tradition, which is the other problem.

Nothing in the rite itself should be sung. It’s clearly something cooked up in a lab by people with no pastoral experience.

Baptism is also weird because, well, it doesn’t allow for active participation in a meaningful way, and the attendance of the faithful as a large community is also questionable. The renewal of baptismal promises (which is suspect and only came into existence in 1956 as it is) can be done with a microphone, but otherwise it’s hardly possible to direct the questions to the whole church in anything resembling a satisfactory way.

Quite a bit of the rite is directed to God or to the parents and godparents with precisely nothing that a large group of people should care about. It’s about as far from the Mass as one can get.

smvanroode

‘Nothing in the rite itself should be sung.’ Really? The 1976 Latin editio typica altera of the Ordo Baptismi parvulorum is very clear about the use of music and song during the Rite of Baptism:

Cum Baptismi celebratio plurimum adiumenti a cantu accipiat, sive ad excitandam adstantium unanimitatem, sive ad orationem eorum communem fovendam, sive denique ad paschalem letitiam manifestandam, qua ritum resonare oportet, studeant Conferentie Episcopales peritos musicos incitare et iuvare ut melodiis ornent liturgicos textus, qui digni censentur ut a fidelibus cantentur. (Prænotanda generalia 33)

The celebration of Baptism gains greatly from singing, whether by fostering the unity of those present, by supporting their common prayer, or finally by expressing the paschal joy that ought to resound in the rite. The Ordo actually gives an overview of twenty acclamations, hymns and troparia that can be sung during baptism (page 88-90).

‘It doesn’t allow for active participation in a meaningful way.’ Really? With respect to the active participation of the community, the Ordo affrims that ‘it is fitting that in the celebration of Baptism the People of God be represented—not only by the godparents, the parents, and close relatives, but also, insofar as possible, by friends, neighbors, and some members of the local church. In this way, the common faith is made manifest, and the shared joy is expressed with which the newly baptized are received into the Church’ (Prænotanda generalia 7). ‘In this way it becomes evident that the faith in which the children are baptized is not only the possession of the family, but the treasure of the entire Church of Christ’ (Prænotanda 4).

Palestrina

I would think there are probably some precedents for the use of music in the 1962 rite of baptism too.

I note that Weller refers to music in the context of ‘solemn baptism’ in his 1964 ritual and sincerely doubt that this made it into his edition on a whim…

Chant_Supremacist

Can we give the man some music suggestions?

MatthewRoth

@smvanroode nothing in the rite itself should be sung is not the same as singing at baptism which is what the book says may be done. You twisted that very important point.

Repeating the Praetonanda is not an argument. It’s just asserting that active participation is good — but I just explained how active participation is thwarted by the nature of the rite. Sure, a small intimate baptism will have people easily paying attention and responding but it gets that much harder when you scale the congregation as you’re also supposed to do. And again: singing things that you choose to add to baptism which are fully optional, however ideal they might be, is not singing the rite itself.

And the ideal is (obviously) questionable.

@Palestrina assertion without evidence, counselor. (Thread HERE)

@Chant_Supremacist I wasn’t going to bring it up since I already feel so strongly but the list that he came up with is so far removed from what I would wish to do even at Mass that I think “do what you like” was more than adequate. But since the thread did involve this assertion of principles (despite the principle having nothing to do with either tradition or pastoral reality) it’s fair game to talk about that.

fcb

I've probably done a hundred or so baptisms, and my pastoral experience is that it is just about as difficult to get people to sing at them as it is to get them to sing at Mass. It obviously works best if you've got good musical leadership and people with at least some inclination to sing. If you don't have those, as at Mass, you're probably better off going without music. But if you do have at least one of the two, then music greatly enhances the celebration.

As to the OP's actual request, this all looks lovely. For the song after the homily, perhaps "I Heard the Voice of Jesus Say," which is familiar to a lot of folks and also not too long (about the same length as "I Want to Walk"). For the procession to the altar, you might consider "Isti sunt agni novelli."

smvanroode

You twisted that very important point.

It wasn’t my intention to twist your point. I just wasn’t aware of your distinction between the rite and the celebration of Baptism. For you it’s important, obviously; for me however, not so.

The Prænotanda makes the important point that song and active participation are not just externals to the celebration of Baptism, but are elements that are integral to the rite and cannot easily be overlooked, neglected or be set aside. This is nothing new, but rooted in the call of Sacrosanctum Concilium for the renewal of the liturgy.

The reason I quoted from the Prænotanda, is that it actually explains why song and active participation are important during Baptism. For me, two reasons stand out: to make manifest the common faith (which is the treasure of the entire Church) and to give expression to the Paschal joy.

As to the original post, I cannot comment on the choice of music, but I applaud the fact that at key points of the celebration there is something the community will sing: songs that accompany the processions to the ambo, font and altar, and acclamations after the blessing of the baptismal water and Baptism itself. It fits quite well the overall vision of the Ordo.

francis

Just occurred to me... Did Jesus have music and congregational participation at his baptism? I do believe his Father and the Holy Ghost were definitely present, and were active participants.

Aside from that, my concern about ALL the sacraments (not just baptism) is that they were changed with VII to be mainly focused on a 'communal celebration' rather than a 'ritual'. Just sayin. The ritual is VITAL... [matter, form, intent]... the singing of music... not so much.

MatthewRoth

Well you went off about something that you got wrong.

But song is external to the celebration! It’s not like the Mass or the Office, or even other rites, where texts and music are prescribed and where they ought to be sung! At the very least, you have the unchanging parts of the Mass, the dialogues, and then the preface and orations (to say nothing of the anaphora etc., which may or may not be sung for a host of reasons).

In the NO, of course, the propers can be replaced, and usually are, but unlike at the Mass and at the office, the rite of baptism is not deficient if you stray from the texts, and absolutely nothing is removed from the rite of baptism when you omit music. Incensing the altar is deficient without an introit or an offertory proper; we know this (well, at least on this forum we do). The gradual has more merit than a responsorial psalm, but at least the latter is a prescribed liturgical text (and any substitute collection has to be approved by the appropriate authority).

It’s also sort of head-scratching. Even in Europe, baptismal fonts have been moved around or the historical baptistry has been reduced to a museum piece, so a procession to the font…well you’re already in the church. There’s no real procession.

And again, because you clearly are skipping over this: active participationg-is-always-good is taken as axiomatic by the compilers of the rite, but they have failed to consider that it’s impeded by the nature of the rite itself, which is why you have to fall back onto (optional) musical elements, and again, the rite never ever had music before the mid-twentieth century.

But anyway as I like to point out: the current position of the Holy See, apparently, is that the ancient rite of baptism is only good for Francis Ford Coppola, which is obviously ridiculous.

Chant_Supremacist

Proffering some suggestions. I haven't programmed for a baptismal liturgy before, so I hope there aren't any howlers, but in general I am looking to reduce the quantity and increase the quality:

Gathering/Reception of the Child: All Things Bright and Beautiful - You didn't specifically ask for input here but I just like this hymn much better (Monk, or Royal Oak if it's not taken too fast) and I think it works at this spot.
Procession to Ambo for Liturgy of the Word: Psalm 85:7, 8, 9ab (mode 5)
Acclamation: Celtic Alleluia
Song after homily: I wouldn't sing anything here. Just let people reflect in silence after the homily for a few moments, then into the procession or what-have-you.
Procession to Font: Psalm 23 (Mode 2 monasticus)
Blessing over Baptismal Water/Acclamation: Why not just let everyone hear and reply to the blessing, which is fairly short? I would leave out music here.
Acclamation after baptism: maybe In Manus Tuas from compline?
Conclusion/procession back to altar: "God who at the Font.." (ST THOMAS) - I think this is a nice text over the Tantum Ergo tune (not sure of the true origin of the tune but this is how I think of it)
Song of Praise: Magnificat (Chepponis) - This is pretty syrupy, what about the royal tone Magnificat with fauxbourdon?

I'm assuming the font is at the rear or some ways back in the nave, so the processions could be covered without awkwardness by a longer piece. If it's close to the altar I would consider eliminating the music or selecting briefer pieces.

On the bigger question of having music at all, it looks like this is not apart from the mind of the Church in our day, and the OP is obviously going to go ahead with it. I would just want to avoid a childish sing-along quality that sometimes afflicts NO liturgies.

Gamba

Some of y’all need to go to a nice midwestern-Lutheran baptism. Those are always placed at the beginning of the Eucharist, basically in a procession with a [protracted] station at the font.

I worked in a healthy and growing Lutheran parish where there was a baptism at one of the weekend liturgies approx. every other week. And in every case the usual congregation was visibly happy to be welcoming another Christian into the family, singing and making the responses with gusto. Afterwards we all had coffee and the family, no matter how long they had been away from the church, was surrounded by well-wishers, kindly grandmothers asking if they could help with the baby, and fellow young parents offering friendship.

To me that’s rather nicer than 2pm on Sundays for a private group of 15 who get a couple pictures for Instagram and never return…..

fcb

active participation-is-always-good is taken as axiomatic by the compilers of the rite, but they have failed to consider that it’s impeded by the nature of the rite itself

I'm wondering if you might say more about this. I'm not sure I understand what you mean about the rite itself impeding active participation.

MatthewRoth

As I said above:

Baptism is also weird because, well, it doesn’t allow for active participation in a meaningful way, and the attendance of the faithful as a large community is also questionable. The renewal of baptismal promises (which is suspect and only came into existence in 1956 as it is) can be done with a microphone, but otherwise it’s hardly possible to direct the questions to the whole church in anything resembling a satisfactory way.

Quite a bit of the rite is directed to God or to the parents and godparents with precisely nothing that a large group of people should care about. It’s about as far from the Mass as one can get.

I should add that the rite is actually directed at the child but of course the parents and godparents are the ones responding.

The only way to get active participation is to add external music: all of those things could be simply read, which would be at least consistent with the rest of the rite, but if they really wanted music, only antiphons and psalmody is the way to go, like the rest of the rites which don't have propers and where something is done, while everyone watches, or there's some walking (and where they didn't insert a responsory or tract, as on Candlemas, Palm Sunday, and Holy Saturday in the classical Roman rite). Indeed, that this is normative is shown by something like the rite of consecration of a virgin or that of professing vows: even if the texts aren't an exact match to existing chant antiphons, that's what the Roman rite has always done. (No. 33 mentions episcopal conferences asking for compositions…well…)

Those antiphons can be sung, but need not be, by the people (since active participation isn't only external), and they form the text of the rite.

I think that I would still argue that music at a baptism is untraditional and adds nothing to the rite, since the bulk of the actual rite is recited and needs to be out loud, unlike at the Mass, where some stuff (the offertory, the beginning of the TLM, etc.) is going on quietly at the altar and need not be heard by the people while the chant is sung, whereas you can't really have something forming the actual text of the rite sung over the baptismal rites…

and the problem is that baptisms are not, well, predictable and frequent: you have to come to a lot of them to get the hang of the music then. But people don't usually come to every baptism, unless they do the naughty thing and make them a part of the (Sunday) Mass that people attend regularly.

But that also gets to my point above: what was wrong with the parts of the ritual that did exist and were simply recited? There was no reason to abolish those in the reform.

Chant_Supremacist

@MatthewRoth I have to say, I was reading over the archdiocese guidance document posted above and, first of all, noticed how closely the OP’s selections adhere to it, and secondly and more deeply, how strange it is. They really recommend not just covering, but actually pausing the rite in several places for the singing of merely devotional music. I won’t get into what I find odd about the revised rite itself, but the musical guidance from the archdiocese is disordered imo.

smvanroode

It took me some time to realize, but there is no right or wrong here. There are however two quite different (one might say: opposing) points of view that differ in how one thinks about the nature of the liturgy, sacramental efficiency and ecclesiology.

One point of view focuses on the conferral of the sacrament and hence its ritual requirements, its matter and form. Everything else – like music or the active participation of the faithful – is external to the rite and might be added for appearances, but are not at all necessary. Moreover, they interrupt and pause the execution of the rite. The conferral of the sacrament only pertains to those directly involved.

Another point of view takes the celebration of te sacrament as its starting point. Liturgical celebrations of the sacraments pertain to the whole body of the Church; they manifest it and have effects upon it. Therefore, the communal celebration involving the presence and active participation of the faithful is preferred. These are not externals to be added, but integral elements that can optionally be left away for pastoral reasons.

One point of view is better aligned with the current liturgical books than the other. For example, the rite explicitly asks for the body of the Church to be present and participate actively in the celebration (cf. 32). The rite explicitly asks for the singing of those present (cf. 35, 42, 44, 46, 52, 59, 60, 67, 71), which fosters the unity of those present, supports their common prayer and expresses the paschal joy that ought to resound in the rite.

I don’t think these two points of view could or should be reconciled. They can co-exist. But it’s good to recognize the other person’s point of view and value these according to the circumstances (the context of the current or former rites, in this particular case).

For myself, this thread has been a helpful reminder for the coming baptism of our newborn son, now three weeks old.

Palestrina

smvanroode, my initial reaction is that this almost seems like an East versus West view.

Given the cross-pollinations between the two, you’ve given me significant food for thought.

Charles_Weaver

At the baptism of all of my children (the last three of them in the old rite), we sang a hymn at the end: generally Joyful Joyful we Adore Thee or Praise My Soul the King of Heaven etc. Those last three were at my current church in Norwalk, and for those we had organ preludes too (Schmücke dich). At least in the old rite, I agree that there's not really any essential singing or music WITHIN the liturgy, but ever since I was a kid and knew nothing of the Church's liturgical or musical Tradition, I always loved the dramatic organ music that accompanies the baptism at the end of The Godfather.

Charles_Weaver

Also, tradition holds that the very first Te Deum was sung at a baptism!

MatthewRoth

They really recommend not just covering, but actually pausing the rite in several places for the singing of merely devotional music

Yes. That’s a succinct way of putting it. Most of the places where the ritual, not just diocesan guidance, says that there should be music require the rite to be put on hold for the sake of music. This essentially never happens in the traditional rite (even if it happens that in practice the music is too long for such a tiny church as is often the case on Candlemas or Palm Sunday, when entering the church to the responsory). In the NO it happens occasionally, but I would still characterize it as exceptional.

I think music at the end of a baptism is also different.

@smvanroode you are mischaracterizing my view because the active participation is impeded by the nature of the rite which itself is not being sung and can’t be; it’s not like the Mass, the office, or any of the great blessings and other ceremonies (which is where the choppiness starts to come in if only exceptionally compared to the traditional rite). It’s not that I don’t find baptism to be communal or something to be done sloppily and without a solid mutual understanding of the sacrament. It’s just that it’s still essentially a deprived rite and that we should be consistent in avoiding adding music for its own sake which is what happens when you subordinate the celebration to music by pausing it.

I wouldn’t like it (neither would libs for that matter) and would wonder if it was missing the point, but if you sang something over the baptisms well it would at least make more sense. But stopping to sing between each baptism when multiple children are baptism is also uh pastorally problematic in addition to the subordination of the required rite to optional music.

smvanroode

Sure, my wording of the two points of view was probably a bit too simplistic and missing necessary nuances. Thank you for cordially pointing that out.

‘Active participation is impeded by the nature of the rite…’; ‘…which itself is not being sung and can’t be’; ‘…avoiding adding music for its own sake‘; ‘…subordinate the celebration to music by pausing it’.

See? One comes to these statements from a certain point of view, and that’s fine. But the current liturgical books are derived from another standpoint, where music isn’t added for its own sake and doesn’t pause the celebration, but actually is an integral part of the celebration, and where active participation is taken as essential to the celebration.

That doesn’t make your judgement of the current Ordo right or wrong. It’s all about accepting that there are different points of view that consequently lead to opposing conclusions and opinions. But it’s also good to realize that the current Ordo was likely compiled on the basis of principles that differ from yours. I hope that we can at least agree about that.

Chant_Supremacist

I thought that it was taken for granted here that truly liturgical music was indeed the superior paradigm. I'm taken aback to hear that they're just differing points of view.

I don't even think that a correct understanding of active participation is being advanced under this other view. It's centrally about participation IN the rite - so everyone singing a song which is extrinsic to the rite can be perfectly nice and edifying, and I'm all for it, but clearly diminished, non-essential, and if it interrupts the rite, unambiguously disordered.

a_f_hawkins

It must be over 70 years since I attended the old rite of Baptism, and that was the conditional baptism of an adult. So - is this what we are talking about, and particularly MatthewRoth is this what you are talking about?

MatthewRoth

I couldn’t possibly say what principles were used to compile the rite, in part because the rest is so glaringly different from the rite that is apparently good enough only for Francis Ford Coppola, but it seems patently obvious that “pastoral experience with infants” wasn’t a requirement to be a compiler.

What CS says is what I’m getting at but more succinctly.

And indeed:

. But the current liturgical books are derived from another standpoint, where music isn’t added for its own sake and doesn’t pause the celebration, but actually is an integral part of the celebration, and where active participation is taken as essential to the celebration.

As I have said multiple times every other rite is much closer to the traditional way, at least on paper, both in where it music is expected and where texts to be sung are provided (the propers, the ordinary, and the office chants, the dialogues, the celebrant’s prayers, etc.), and where music is probably not a good idea and where you don’t sing the rite itself (and anointing would be a seriously bad place to encourage extrinsic music for reasons similar to baptisms…). This is true even if the rite is conceived so that “two things happen at once, something at the altar or in the church while the proper chant is sung” is kept to a minimum.

This is active participation for the sake of doing something which is bad and wrong.

smvanroode

I feel like we’re going around in circles. It is only when you take the mere essentials of the conferral of the sacrament as your starting point that you can conclude that the singing of the community is ‘extrinsic to the rite’, ‘non-essential’, ‘interrupting the rite’ and ‘disordered’.

The Prænotanda and the rubrics of the Ordo start from a completely different premise, advocated and called for by Sacrosanctum Consilium (cf. 27 and 112). The active participation of the community isn’t ‘for the sake of doing something’. Its purpose is distinctly and clearly described: to make manifest the common faith and to express the shared joy with which the newly baptized are received into the Church and that ‘ought to resound in the rite’. It doesn’t interrupt the rite, because it is specifically called for by the rubrics; it’s an integral part of the celebration. Failing to recognize that, is to mischaracterize and even ridicule the premises of the current Ordo.

I find it a bit disheartening that the OP, asking feedback for his program for a baptism, should meet comments like ‘the liturgy being sung as a norm does not extend to baptisms’ or ‘it doesn’t allow for active participation in a meaningful way’ when all he did was faithfully follow the directions in the Ordo.

a_f_hawkins

I feel like we’re going around in circles.

I think we are just talking past each other! You are speaking to the current liturgical books. It would be most helpful if someone, preferably MatthewRoth, on the 'other side' would clarify whether they are referring the ceremonial shown in the left hand column of this :- https://catholicscout.wordpress.com/2014/01/20/baptism-side-by-side-traditional-new-rite/

Charles_Weaver

I don't know if I'm on a side, but I will confirm that my last three children were baptized according to the left hand column during the era of Summorum Pontificum. We had music as I described above, pretty much just a hymn of thanksgiving afterwards.

Summing up the discussion here, it is clear that in the old rite there really isn't much opportunity for singing. Obviously that is different in the new rite. The rite has indeed changed a lot in the wake of the council. I think the old order has much to recommend it, which is why I chose it for some of my kids. One thing I would point out in particular is that the godparents do everything in the old rite, and the parents do nothing. It is a great reminder that by receiving the sacrament you are entering into the family by virtue of sonship by adoption; nobody is "born Catholic."

To the OP's original query for suggestions, I'm attaching a rather beautiful hymn from the Sarum rite that is used at Easter, just after the baptisms. I think the Te Deum or similar might be a good choice. For my son Patrick, I think we sang the Lorica. I would also suggest that Sicut Cervus (Palestrina in this anniversary year?) would also be an excellent choice for the beginning of Mass. My wife comes from a very musical family, so we always had good singers and plentiful on hand for these family occasions, not to mention the various choir members and colleagues who were always there.

Chant_Supremacist

The Praenotanda says that congregational music should be included in the rite of baptism and SC says inter alia that active participation is to be fostered. Personally, I haven't said otherwise and I don't claim that those instructions are disordered.

I object to and call disordered the guidance of the OP's archdiocese, attached to an earlier post, which calls for 9 pieces, including one randomly inserted after the homily. At that point why not insert another hymn after the procession to the font? Let's call it "Arrival at the Font". Why not follow the hymn of acclamation after the baptism with a Post-Acclamation Reflection Hymn? Why after all stop at 9? Wouldn't 15 hymns express even more strongly the communal nature of the rite and allow for even more active participation?

MatthewRoth

I find it a bit disheartening that the OP, asking feedback for his program for a baptism, should meet comments like ‘the liturgy being sung as a norm does not extend to baptisms’ or ‘it doesn’t allow for active participation in a meaningful way’ when all he did was faithfully follow the directions in the Ordo.

As I said, he brought up the principles. Had he not done so, I'd have stayed out, as I don't have much to offer, in part because I actually don't believe in being the proverbial turd in the punch bowl.

@a_f_hawkins why should I clarify? I'm clearly speaking of the new rite and have been the whole time. I think that the new rite is inconsistent with itself, and pastoral practice bears this out. The only references to the traditional rite that I've made are that the need for a reform, whether to justify active participation (and then not get it, because the rite is inherently limited) or to undermine the faith or perhaps some good reason, are to point out that the imposition of the new rite has been such that people know the old from movies, and that no one seems to realize how bad this is (bad for liberals, because the youth get radicalized; bad for the church, because a cultural treasure shouldn't be locked up and deemed harmful except in a movie).

to be clear the archdiocese is just following the instructions of the ritual, including with respect to music after the homily (sermon), so the problem is baked in, and as I said elsewhere, even if we can justify music during the processions as music intrinsic to the rite (leaving aside that in reality there really isn't a procession, because people assemble near the font, or the font is in the front or something), you have quite a few of these if you do the full rite…which is just kind of insane, given that, well, it's a baby.

although it does beg the question of what was wrong with leading the recitation of the basic prayers in the procession from the church door to the font? (This is something that didn't have to go away, but it really does reflect a defective understanding, insofar as the old view was now to be considered wrong and harmful.)

Joseph_M

Thank you all for your thoughtful conversations and varied views. When I said "different resources available" that meant the home parish where I grew up had different resources that folks were familiar with, so some of the music was "syrupy" to accommodate what the cantor/organist knew which was also familiar to the 50 people in attendance. We registered at the parish I play (not where I live), and the parish has more extensive knowledge of traditional chant/hymnody. This breaks the tradition of all my family's sacraments being in the parish I grew up and live.

I appreciate those who offered ideas on the musical settings. I'm really just trying to find a good English setting of the Magnificat, and will likely resort to what we sing at Solemn Vespers Tone VIf since that's the easiest thing for me to put together.

I'd encourage each of you music directors to look through the Baptism Rite, and put together the resources necessary for music to be incorporated. We can humbly submit ourselves to what the Church envisions, and trust Mother Church more than ourselves and our opinions and views on the past/future. This resource being compiled now, may prove useful in the future...

Chant_Supremacist

Does anyone have an explanation for why the rite of Baptism was changed to sort of resemble a mass?

Liam

One place to start might be to read the praenotanda and associated documents of promulgation.

a_f_hawkins

sort of resemble a mass

If you mean why have Baptism preceded by scripture readings, that was a general choice to have the word of God listened to before any sacramental event. I guess it goes along with introducing the vernacular.

Chant_Supremacist

Readings, homily - a good chunk of the liturgy of the word was just copy-pasted into the rite, replacing the exorcisms. (This has the side effect of nearly requiring the insertion of music in the equivalent places, creating a further resemblance, only here there is nothing proper to the rite, afaik - a pure alius cantus aptus situation.) Also prayers of the faithful, and even apparently encouraging the insertion of a hymn after the homily that seems to poorly mimic the creed. It is a strange homogenization.

smvanroode

Please keep in mind that the reading from Scripture is a general liturgical principle, that is also applied to blessings, for example. It is a general norm that should be observed according to Sacrosanctum Concilium:

24. Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy. For it is from scripture that lessons are read and explained in the homily, and psalms are sung; the prayers, collects, and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration and their force, and it is from the scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning. Thus to achieve the restoration, progress, and adaptation of the sacred liturgy, it is essential to promote that warm and living love for scripture to which the venerable tradition of both eastern and western rites gives testimony.

35.1 In sacred celebrations there is to be more reading from holy scripture, and it is to be more varied and suitable.

So, it’s not about becoming a resemblance of Mass, it’s about being liturgical in a general sense.

there is nothing proper to the rite

The rite itself makes very specific suggestions.

Chant_Supremacist

Well, as with the active participation/inclusion of music discussion, I don't question SC but some non-essential aspects of its later implementation, including not just particular diocesan guidance but also the promulgated rite.

Obviously the council fathers did not say that the rite of infant baptism should have its first half more or less removed and replaced with a simulacrum of the liturgy of the word from the mass, including a homily (like in mass), and also prayers of the faithful (like in mass).

I won't get into what the preceding norms say about avoiding innovation unless truly required. That's relevant in a broad sense, but what I'm focused on at present is the apparent impulse to homogenize these sacraments displayed in the new rite of infant baptism, which is NOT an ineluctable result of the norms articulated in SC. It prima facie suggests some collapse of signification.

The rite itself makes very specific suggestions.

So we're agreed they're neither proper nor ordinary. The way you have advocated for loose and deconstructed definitions of words like "proper," "integral [to the rite]," and "participation" is, imho, not helpful to liturgical reform at this stage, nor truly accurate. I don't say this as a rad trad anti-NO, as maybe you're perceiving me, but just from a recognition that we need solid, traditionally-grounded definitions of fundamental terms to get anywhere.

MatthewRoth

(I am pretty anti-NO, but) the NO is problematic on its own terms, and while I have specific examples of SC where I think that it already goes off the rails, so I don’t do the whole « this isn’t the Mass/liturgy desired by the conciliar fathers » thing, nevertheless, it’s hard to square what was written in that document compared to, well, what we got.

Chant_Supremacist

There's a lot going on here and it's all worthy of discussion, but to try and be concise at this stage what I'm intrigued by is the seeming partial collapse of signification of the rite of infant baptism into that of the mass. I want to articulate this better and discussion helps.

We could talk about SC but I'm sure it would be nothing new to you, so what I'll say is I've found that turning a critical mind to an ecumenical council causes a certain bedrock mental peace I need to crumble, so I just don't do that. Implementation and hermeneutical questions don't provoke the same level of mental turmoil for me.

fcb

SC 35.1 is a pretty clear Conciliar mandate for the inclusion of more scripture in the Rite of Baptism. And the rite does not require a full liturgy of the word--I typically just do a Gospel reading and give a 2-3 minute fervorino.

Also, the Rite of Baptism retains the exorcism, in connection with the first anointing. Admittedly, the language is toned down, and it is cast as a prayer rather than an address to the evil spirit, but the exorcism has not been banished entirely.

That being said, I do think there are some aspects of the old rite that are better--particularly the use of salt (retained, I believe, in Germany) and the location of the anointing between the renunciation and profession. But those are simply my opinions; as a minister my job is to use the rite as given and try my best to celebrate it in a way that conforms with the expectations of the rite (in this case, with music if feasible--which it often isn't).

smvanroode

we need solid, traditionally-grounded definitions of fundamental terms to get anywhere

Agreed, because we are just talking past each other, as a_f_hawkins noted earlier. At least, we should know how someone understands certain words and terms. Let’s get each other’s semantics straight – I’m curious.

So, what do YOU mean by ‘rite’? What does it mean to YOU that something is or isn’t ‘proper’ to the rite? Why are elements ‘integral’ to the rite according to YOU?

Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!

Categories