Yeah. We have long done O Sanctissima in that situation, with Salve Mater Misericordiae being the second text. (I’m not particularly scrupulous about the non-liturgical devotional Latin texts, so…) but in any case the problem is length. The offertory is usually the longer chant of the two, and an office text can get quite long (the chant of something like Ave Maris Stella might be equal to the length of a polyphonic motet for example!)

But unless it’s prohibited I prefer for our organist to play a bit at the offertory and then we do verses with the communion, if not also something else.

This discusssion must be about High Mass.

Cantus Selecti has much material that is beyond the capabilities of the average congregation, but there are many items that are useful. There are a good number that have Antiphons, or Refrains, where the verses can be sung by a cantor, or cantors. Chants of the Church is another source, but is almost TOO short, and is not arranged liturgically.

There is absolutely no need for additional congregational singing at a Requiem…Holy Communion was rarely if ever distributed at Requiems (in particular sung Masses), at least during Mass itself; certain versions of the Rituale explains how to distribute when the priest is in black Mass vestments. Trad Catholics are not very trad when they insist on communing. We have added psalm verses to the chant, but I don’t at Requiems for a couple of reasons, one of which is discouraging communion: extending the proper suggests in an even stronger way than congregational singing (or organ music) that we are filling the time with it just noise or sound but the music appropriate for the moment.

The offertory is not as long because the incensations are shorter. We would keep the priest waiting if we did a motet never mind a chant with a refrain.

Anyway as I said, Cantus Selecti is hit and miss, but if you don’t mention it, and only mention the Liber Usualis, then it’s a bit frustrating for you to then to make the same remark about CS that you made about the Liber; one would have reasonably inferred that you didn’t know about CS or had not had reason to consider it—and someone finding this thread would find this information valuable.

Unfortunately if you want them to ever sing hymns you have to try, and you have to work at it. Or not, in which case I don’t even know why one would not just entrust additional music fully to a schola.

Correction: there is absolutely no need for additional congregational singing at a Requiem in your particular context, with your particular resources and your particular expectations.

I didn’t ask for your opinion in that way. And I meant what I said the way I wrote it. So I don’t appreciate the tone—and if you are hurt that I’m direct, well you’re asking for a response or not, but since I write for future readers as much as anyone else, let the record show that the pseudonymous contributor apparently has beef with me.

I’m once reminded that you’re not a particularly pleasant contributor here, or at least aren’t to me, because you pose questions but already have an answer or opinion, always having a bee in your bonnet, and sometimes you’re just wrong.

I didn’t say that anything absolutely prohibited music, but you’re the one who has the yardstick of suitability. Keeping the priest waiting is not suitable. And it’s exacerbated with a long offertory proper that is sung when less is going on at the altar than usual. Again, the communion is sufficient for what communion ought to be. You don’t have to like that, but ya know, aren’t we supposed to believe and promote the notion that Catholics need not communion at every Mass?

You might want to have congregational singing but you would be the one doing the not-trad thing, as I pointed out. If you really want to have music, including congregational singing, that’s fine, but you might want to, you know, back off from your complaints if you didn’t ask yourself before posting why there is essentially nothing that can (licitly) be sung in simple chant (with the congregation) during communion at a sung Requiem Mass.

And I think that the assumption needs more interrogation; people finding this thread in the future deserve that.

There is always a particular danger in using one's own circumstances as the yardstick for all others internationally.

Good thing that I didn’t. But if I did, I have high standards and we have come a long way, some of which I have described here at various points in the past. But even so, it’s not like it’s always sunshine and roses here!

In terms of sources, if it's Solesmes-derived or Solesmes-published, I've seen it. They all seem to have the same limited range of music, in any event, and the pieces that aren't propers seem to be geared towards Benediction and devotions (Cantus Selecti, which is referenced in the Liber, is a good case in point).

OK but you also said:

The back of the Liber has obvious parts of the temporal cycle covered off easily, but the sanctoral cycle and the period after Pentecost are more difficult from a 'congregational' perspective.

So what do you even want, if the exact same thing in another book isn’t to your liking? The only difference between CS and the Liber is that the former has more obscure material and responsories etc. that congregations probably can’t easily sing. Otherwise, I don’t see how the Liber suffices for the proper of time and the major feasts celebrated everywhere, since it would also just be geared for Benediction.

You probably could stand to lead off more clearly in the first place.

I am far more interested in the wider range of older sources that don't form part of the mainsteam chant and Latin-texted repertoire.

Again, why do you never ask for what you really want first? But you need to define your terms. The neo-Gallican Parisian breviary has some interesting texts that fit meters that have absolutely nothing to do with any meter of the Roman breviary. Think of something that you can sing to PICARDY. But at what cost? The Latin is atrocious. At least the Sacred Heart hymns that you can fit to EISENACH are classical-ish Latin in a standard enough meter.

Anyway Patrick is far more gracious than I am on here (and is very much so IRL, lest people forget that online personalities≠IRL) so I think that’s it from me.

These collections were published with a congregation in mind, except this congregation did not sing these pieces as part of the Liturgy.

I'm not so sure about that... There's also the 16th-century and later hymnals published in Germany (often by Jesuits) where liturgical use seems pretty unambiguous. It's an interesting chapter in our history, and one that does not sit comfortably within some of the existing narratives.

Thanks for the referral to Analecta Hymnica. I'll look at this alongside the earlier hymnals to see what appears. My ideal really is something refrain-based to make it very easy for the congregation to join in with a cantor to cover off the verses.

Not everyone's cup of tea, I know... but the idea of a fully trained Gregorian schola with full propers per the Graduale (with the best interpretation of course), full Offertoria with their verses and the rest are in some places a simply unattainable ideal. It would be nice to have a pathway towards Sung Mass in spite of local limitations.

I'm not so sure about that... There's also the 16th-century and later hymnals published in Germany (often by Jesuits) where liturgical use seems pretty unambiguous. It's an interesting chapter in our history, and one that does not sit comfortably within some of the existing narratives.

The problem is some people over the last 100 years are singing all sorts of songs at Mass that has nothing to do with the Liturgy, we then think that people in the past were just as lax.

Piae Cantiones is clearly a book of religious songs, not a book of Liturgical music. Also appealing to those that wanted to turn the Mass into an opportunity to sing popular songs as a background to the Liturgy is hardly an ideal.

The lives of the Saints have plenty of accounts of religious songs being used for educational purposes and the replacement of vulgar lyrics.

simply unattainable ideal...

It is only unattainable if you want it to be. We have busy lives, that take us away from our duties to the Church, but that is a choice. We can choose to centre, and have been called to centre our lives around the Faith, if we do this forming a schola is really not difficult, books are cheap, we have plenty of resources, and can even listen to endless recordings.

In the past people travelled across Europe to learn how to chant properly, we can do it in our home and it is too difficult? Really?

Anyway if you are looking for music in honour of the Saints, this has a growing collection of music mostly written for Liturgical use, https://societyofstbede.wordpress.com/cantus-varii-sanctoral-cycle/

I'm guessing you want something similar to Rorate caeli, Attende Domine, Ubi caritas and Gloria laus et honor as something with a short(ish) refrain which a congregation can learn. Certainly Ubi caritas can be repurposed for throughout the year.

There are a few interesting call-and-response chants in the Sarum Processional, and digging into Prosa as a genre might turn up some useful results.

And then there's this... https://www.booktopia.com.au/devotional-refrains-in-medieval-latin-song-mary-channen-caldwell/book/9781009044004.html

Clearly there are repertoires out there to look at more closely.

I think Laszlo Dobszay had a point in arguing that the Roman Rite is 'bigger' than the form handed down in the Tridentine Missal.

tomjaw, I take your repeated point about the distinction between the liturgical and devotional.

What of O Filii et Filiae, however? It sits in the Liber and is a mainstay of Latin Mass communities around the world. What difference is there between it and at least some parts of Piae Cantiones, or other material in earlier hymnals? It seems to me that the main difference is that Solesmes included it in their book!

I confess to being very partial to Martin Baker's (vernacular) arrangement...

I was even looking at Adrian Fortescue's book of Latin hymns and was surprised to find some German, fairly recent, sources in there. It seems to me that there's a need to be judicious in what we use but just because something is in an unlikely source does not mean it is to be ruled out automatically.

I agree with you with respect to the importance of the Propers.

I'd suggest, however, that the MOST important thing to sing is the Ordinary. If the congregation can carry that, the rest is easy.

If it's a matter of singers using Rossini or even recto tono for the short to medium term, I think that's just something that needs to happen.

This is a post TC world. That means that for many people, the convience of a 'local' Latin Mass is not there anymore. It's not a matter of a lack of commitment when you have big families with stretched budgets; it's a matter of deciding on whether they can actually afford to drive the car that distance twice per week instead of once per week (and what, by extension, they won't be driving to instead). I certainly don't buy the argument that it can all be learned online on the basis that I don't know of any reputable music schools that offer performance instruction regularly in that way.

It's also a matter of doing things properly. How often I have heard the propers of the Graduale massacred by well-intentioned choirs of amateurs. It is reassuring to know that Latin is a dead language... and on that basis does not suffer. Far better to have a few psalm tones done competently than the equivalent of Mr Bean's restoration work performed on the portrait of Whistler's mother.

trentonjconn, absolutely agreed.

How much worse, however, to not have Sung Mass at all, because there is no prospect of it because the choir cannot do the propers in full? Clearly the Church has thought along those lines too because she has tolerated the simplified propers for the longest time.

I would suggest that having the psalm tones as a fallback position might enable a choir, over the course of several decades, to work up to something far better.

Clearly, the Council Fathers had recognised there was something unachievable about the Graduale in all contexts because they called for a book of simpler chant for use in smaller churches. What was produced was quite good. How sad that it was a dead letter on arrival. It was a principled publication: no neo Gregorian works, only authentic and ancient pieces. For that both it and its compilers should be respected.

We are not supposed to sing secular music at Mass, and I am suspicious about some Latin texts being purely secular with no devotional or Liturgical purpose. I accept that I am in a tiny minority that thinks this way.

Correct, and the document doesn't simply say "any Latin song" and stop there. The selection is qualified by "provided it is suited to the spirit of this part of the Mass" (Offertory) or "in keeping with this part of the Mass" (Communion). Does that mean that supplementary music must have reference to the themes of offering or communion? No. An examination of the texts of the propers is sufficient to demonstrate otherwise.

The Psalm verses of the Communion and the Offertory verses should be the first but not only choice after the Proper chants are sung.

In fact they are the first but not only choice in the pertinent ecclesiastical regulations. The verses are really and truly liturgical texts, though optional, so it is a matter of singing the Mass versus singing at Mass.

It's not a matter of a lack of commitment when you have big families with stretched budgets; it's a matter of deciding on whether they can actually afford to drive the car that distance twice per week instead of once per week (and what, by extension, they won't be driving to instead).

This is the unfortunate reality in non-territorial parishes. I don't know the exact ratio of children to adults among our weekly attendees, but I estimate that adult participation in our music program is less than 2%, which is pretty abysmal compared to the 5% rule of thumb for normal churches. I know of choirs that do all of their rehearsal on Sundays and nothing midweek, but it's not an option in our circumstances because of lack of a suitable rehearsal space. I also have serious concerns about expecting people to do more than about two hours of actual singing at a time.

I would suggest that having the psalm tones as a fallback position might enable a choir, over the course of several decades, to work up to something far better.

Several decades? Seriously?? You're/they're doing something wrong if you're not hearing improvement within a matter of months. If your singers are unwilling to do their homework, for whatever reason, they need to find other ways to serve the parish.

Clearly, the Council Fathers had recognised there was something unachievable about the Graduale in all contexts because they called for a book of simpler chant for use in smaller churches.

The difficulty especially of the chants between the Epistle and Gospel was recognized long before Vatican II. My main problem with the Simplex is that, although intended for use in "lesser churches," as specified on the title page, it has become normative for Masses in the Vatican! I regularly see cathedral and basilica music lists showing Graduale Simplex chants. At least more musically interesting than Rossini psalm tones, I suppose, but come on!

I would rather have a low Mass than psalm tones if people are desperate. That high Mass is normative is all well and good, but if you can't commit to going beyond psalm tones, then what are we even doing here?

Bingo! I concur.

I think for a non-professional cantor to reliably execute all Gregorian propers without simplification or any noticeable mistakes probably does take about a decade of experience. I mean what we do is really quite difficult and can't be mostly achieved within just a few months. Once a parish already has one of us, it becomes easier and faster to train others, but I don't think Palestrina is talking about parishes that already have one experienced (in chant) cantor.

I can't really fathom the position that a low or said mass is preferable to a sung mass with psalmtoned propers. It seems very hardline and, as a policy, likely to backfire and result in less being accomplished. Leaving aside that performing psalmody at mass is self-evidently a reasonable preparatory step to graduating to the authentic chants (not to say it's necessary, but it's self-evidently reasonable from a skill-building perspective), what would you make of intermediate permutations, like preparing the complete Introit or Communio each week, but psalm-toning the rest? Also worse than a low mass?

It's between "get started giving your parish a sung mass immediately, see dividends and gain real experience quickly, but risk introducing a bad habit you'll later have to kick" vs. "toil behind closed doors for a long time, risk giving up entirely, and finally jump straight into the deep end during mass." Well, maybe you'll think the phrasing is tendentious, but I think there's a strong argument for the first approach.

I think for a non-professional cantor to reliably execute all Gregorian propers without simplification or any noticeable mistakes probably does take about a decade of experience.

Again, something seems wrong. I have had total beginners who don't read music become proficient within six months of regular participation in the men's schola. Although only two or three of them might be available for a given Mass, we have half a dozen men who can solfege any chant put in front of them, often up to performance tempo, and several of those aren't professionals. There are another half dozen men in my parish who would like to sing by rote/imitation but have dropped out because they couldn't keep up with the solfege requirement without putting in extra individual practice, which they were unwilling to do.

Just like most of us can't make a month-long Ignatian retreat, most of us also can't memorize the entire chant repertory. In this day and age, we have to develop strong readers. Including your warm-up before Mass, you need to allot time for four to six repetitions of each chant, which means starting it at least a month beforehand, assuming you rehearse weekly, and your total rehearsal time needs to correspond to the number of Masses you sing. We're barely getting by much of the year with an hour and a half midweek rehearsal and about 15 minutes before Mass. Sometimes the pace feels frantic, but it's what we have to do to keep up with the liturgical demands.

I can't really fathom the position that a low or said mass is preferable to a sung mass with psalmtoned propers. It seems very hardline and, as a policy, likely to backfire.

Until fairly recently you couldn't have a Sung Mass at all without deacon and subdeacon unless you had an indult. It does not seem to be the mind of the Church to prefer a Sung Mass when the resources are lacking to execute the ceremonies and chant fully, properly, and well. A concession is not meant to become a decades-long norm.

The solfège requirement is important and is a weakness here because so many have long depended on imitation.

Including your warm-up before Mass, you need to allot time for four to six repetitions of each chant, which means starting it at least a month beforehand, assuming you rehearse weekly, and your total rehearsal time needs to correspond to the number of Masses you sing. We're barely getting by much of the year with an hour and a half midweek rehearsal and about 15 minutes before Mass. Sometimes the pace feels frantic, but it's what we have to do to keep up with the liturgical demands.

We are “only” a week ahead, sometimes two at most, and usually we are doing the following week, although with our foray into polyphony, we are more ambitious and will start a month out. But we usually do the proper several times at one rehearsal (maybe not every note or every chant four+ time, but only the simplest chants get the one-and-done treatment). We have two hours and even then… we have about fifteen minutes from 9:30 to 9:45 as well.

I think 15 minutes of warmup is totally inadequate.

When it's all the time you have between Masses, well then...

Yeah, I get it of course, and it's not like I warmed up for an hour and a half before our 7am Rorate mass last weekend.

I do think it's interesting though. With all the time in the world I would be fine with 2 reps of a chant like In Splendoribus, assuming a relatively established core schola, but would never consider a 15 minute warmup alright, just something you live with sometimes.

Could I prevail upon you for some links, Roborgelmeister?

I’ve searched the Norbertine, Sarum and Benedictine books but searches for those of other orders have come up with things that predate any serious chant scholarship.

I have no grand designs to compile a large collection - I really do think less is more for the purposes of congregational repertoire.

The problem with your alternate thread is that "things the legislation on the 1962 Missal DOES say" would include absurd and unworkable propositions like no readings in Latin, no Masses in parish churches, no listing the Mass time in a bulletin. It's just such a mess that it's not really worth talking about what the legislation does or doesn't say. So much of the legislation in recent years has come from a place of poor understanding or indeed malice.

But some of your points listed here are worth discussing, whether or not they are addressed by the Church's recent legislation. For instance, whether or not the singing of the propers to psalm tones or not is "deprecated" as a point of law, in the context of a church music forum such as this one, I think we can get a sizable number of people to agree that it's a bad idea. Indeed, I think it's a terrible idea, but I say that not as an expert on legislation but as a Church musician. It actually recalls one point you made in the first post in this thread, which is that borrowings from the office are "always inappropriate," to borrow a current usage. To sing Victoria's O Magnum as a motet is a splendid idea. To have the bulk of the chant at the Mass be nothing but psalm tones (in other words, borrowing the entire musical landscape of the office to replace the music that is proper to the Mass) is to completely destroy the beautiful hierarchical arrangement of the Roman rite. There is just no substitute for the real melodies.

I don't know what the solution is in places like you describe, where there are no trained singers and it's difficult to get a choir together. It is a difficult problem. If such a place were to consult with me about how to get real sacred music going in the parish (of course, we can't technically have such a Mass in a parish anyway), I would strongly caution against the adoption of psalm tone propers. I have no legal basis for saying that; I base it only on experience and on my (admittedly imperfect and limited) understanding of the Roman rite and its music.

To Dr. Weaver’s point: we have to thread a needle, which I actually physically cannot do due to my eyesight, so it’s a funny expression, given the realities described.

Christmas is coming. Many people (besides musicians) attend only one Mass if they attend at all, and that’s sometimes midnight Mass. In the new Code of Canon Law, and seemingly for Masses with some form of the old rubrics (1962, pre-55…) you may receive communion. Scott Alcuin Reid says so in his edition of Fortescue-O’Connell from 2003, but his citations of canon law in the footnote don’t pertain to this, and in fact, Stercky is clear that you had to have a (generously granted, admittedly) apostolic indult to distribute and therefore receive communion at the Missa in nocte, except in religious houses which had the faculty to habitually conserve the Blessed Sacrament, which also had this privilege. So there’s at least one Mass where the faithful receiving communion was blocked by the law itself, not just custom or apathy (I also think that if this prohibition is in fact liturgical, and not canonical, it would have been effective in 1962, unless repealed by John XXIII, in which case…). Indeed, the celebrant, wearing all of the Mass vestments in an unusual exception may distribute before or after purely private Masses, but not if he is the celebrant of sung or solemn and conventual Masses, but those are ones where the faithful often don’t commune, for various reasons including the complexity; the pre-1960 consecration of a church is just that much longer, it would hinge on elder abuse to make the consecrating bishop distribute communion (and the 1960 rite is long enough). I actually don’t know how, at Fontgombault and its houses, the pilgrims may commune, but normally the monks commune at low Masses except on great feasts

The singing of additional chants at the Offertory and Communion is restricted to the music already found elsewhere in the Liber Usualis and other liturgical books.

I don’t think that anyone said this. We just don’t seem to understand if everyone is familiar with the contents of existing and relatively easy-to-find books and what exactly is lacking in them.

As to the practical solution, you have to get training even if it’s just on YouTube. There are choirs in Africa (Nigeria and Zambia, for example) that learn how to sing English choral music (Anglican music, Handel…). There are some clear deficiencies in the results when left to their own devices, but one choir contacted Anna Lapwood who essentially became their vocal teacher.

And how many self-taught American community choirs in, say, Appalachia do stuff like Handel’s Messiah?! So given that we do have far more resources…it’s difficult, but it’s not impossible, even if I concede that as difficult as that choral music would be, the Gregorian repertoire is that much harder. Go to conferences, go to Clear Creek or wherever you want to learn chant. Take online classes with the Catholic Institute of Sacred Music and so on.

You also have to do things like fly out people. I would rather work for months on end even if some of it was in person without real feedback and then with Zoom rehearsal or something to fly out a well-known expert in Gregorian chant to have a first sung Mass with the full propers and ordinary than to have psalm tones with no end in sight.

Finally, I’m not quite getting the disdain for psalm tones per se: they make up the vast majority of plainchant repertoire for every day of the year.

People should sing the office regularly and then everyone here will understand why ordinarily simpler antiphons like those of the Graduale Simplex and psalms set to the simpler tones do not form a part of the Mass, except on Candlemas (the blessing of candles is technically before Mass, but it’s never severed from it) and, customarily pre-1955 and seemingly obligatorily after, at the distribution of palms. (The only other psalm that I can think of is psalm 69 sung in directum with the Litany of the Saints on the Rogation days…). The vast vast majority of the office is psalms and antiphons, even if you concede that Matins has more elaborate repertoire like that of the Mass (and Matins is hardly sung, they never even compiled a usable, widely distributed nocturnale etc.), whereas the musical language of the Mass is more melismatic and elaborate or ornamented chant.

They’re legitimate chant musical forms, in context, just like the mode VI Alleluia is chant when it is sung at Vespers of the Easter Vigil, but not when it is sung at Mass after Mass, Sunday after Sunday, from Holy Saturday to Mardi Gras, to borrow one of my favorite Mahrt talking points.

The use of psalm tones in singing the Propers is only tolerated by indult. The indult will only be given to those who undertake to transition to the melodies of the Graduale. Permission may be withdrawn at any time.

Nobody said this either.

The reception of Holy Communion by the faithful at the Requiem Mass is to be strongly discouraged or otherwise restricted. Pastors should implement this requirement diligently and educate the faithful accordingly.

I’ll correct this for the record, since I brought it up: yes, it is strongly discouraged based on the actual practice, or what seems to be practice. I don’t think that I said that liturgical law prohibits it, not directly, but

Indeed, I asked…oh, a scholar, whose name escapes me, who wrote a book about Fauré, about this, and like most things liturgical and doubly so when it’s an American doing a history of France what was actually done at the Madeleine in the 1880s and 90s when Fauré wrote his Requiem about this, and he asserted that it most certainly was, without apparently understanding that the Fauré setting does not really work as written if communion is to be distributed to the faithful, given the requirements of the rite at the time. (I think that Mgr Wadsworth was right when he mentioned to me on another site that it really does seem that this was music meant to be sung over a low Mass, not for a solemn Mass.)

The faithful need not commune every day or at every last Mass; if the Council of Trent really thought that this was desirable in those terms as a discipline, then we would not have had the prohibition on communion at midnight Mass in the first place. We all know that this is true. We all know that funerals are a particularly problematic occasion for receiving. Anyone familiar with Fr. Pasley’s customary exhortation at the CMAA Colloquium knows that the blessings are entirely transferred to the deceased during the Mass: the book is blessed rather than the priest (and therefore the ministers) at the introit, the kisses are omitted, incense is not blessed and is hardly used at all, psalm 42 is cut out (and that one, although it ties the liturgy back to Passion Sunday, it seems to be a conscious omission: Judge me seems too self-centered, and besides, the Requiem and Good Friday are not a 1:1 match anyway).

Could I prevail upon you for some links, Roborgelmeister?

I can't find them. I thought that they were on Corpus Christi Watershed, but I can no longer fathom how to search the library thereof. Sorry.

Charles_Weaver, I agree about the intrinsic worth and distinctiveness of each of the Gregorian proper forms (as set out eloquently in Mahrt's 'The Musical Shape of the Liturgy'). This is what should be done wherever possible.

The chasm between the ideal and reality in so many places is vast. The reality in some places that I know is: people who can't read music, a dearth of people with even basic keyboard skills, congregations that do not understand when they should sing, no pipe organs or even simulacra of any merit. That is truly ground zero. Some of the views proffered earlier about the need for singers to commit, rehearse at certain times in the week (etc etc) seems very out of touch with the realities that I have witnessed in some places. A new set of Mass Propers every week may simply be impossible for some choirs.

Might I suggest that you and others are viewing thigs from the perspective of diminishing the liturgy as and where you know it? If you routinely have the liturgy in its fullness, I have no doubt that a Mass of psalm-toned propers would seem like an impoverishment.

What of those who have Low Mass only? For them, the move to Sung Mass with its ceremonies is a vast enrichment. They have an opportunity to learn the Ordinary of the Mass and many other things besides. Their volunteers may also have the opportunity to learn the propers over time. The full propers may always be beyond them. Perhaps they will only learn some. Surely, this is an enrichment, not an impoverishment?

It seems that Justine Ward saw a place for psalm-toned propers as she published a book of them for children. No doubt she didn't see this as an end point. But at least it's a start.

In a hypothetical situation where the singer is only capable of psalm tones and hymns, perhaps the best thing is to have Vespers instead of Mass.

And I can't speak for others, but the reason I (in my last post) may have come across as touchy about this stuff is the threat we've all felt the last four years that the traditional Mass in various places will be suppressed. If you are in a situation where any week might be the last time you are allowed to sing such a Mass, so much more jealously will you guard the integrity of the Latin Church's musical patrimony, i.e., the real melodies of the propers.

To tie these together, no one will stop you from doing the older office: you see that at the London Oratory, where all sorts of reasons mean that their main public Mass is the NO, but Vespers is 1962, albeit sometimes with more or less reference to the new calendar.

Palestrina, you keep harping about what is or is not a reality or whether people are out of touch. For a lot of reasons, neither Patrick nor myself publicly say every last thing about what we do. The reality is that I have a sung Mass every Sunday, HDO, I class feast, and then some unless the AC goes out, the weather is poor, or the sole priest is in bed sick. Vespers every Sunday from Aug 14 to the end of May or beginning of June.

We have ten people max in the schola. And I need at least one other person (a specific person) ideally two to make it work. Holy Week is a bear as a result. I lost my voice last Christmas literally dropping to the bass during the carol because I couldn’t sing tenor anymore. I try to get people to join, but even at the best of times, we have no takers.

I’m also not the only one who thinks that you either have to do separate work (not just by oneself at home, but something like a Laus in Ecclesia run-through). I’ve talked to the ICRSP chant director in Detroit; his schola was Solesmes-adjacent but really not musical or interested in the theory, except that to do it the way that the Institute wants, neither are optional. So he made them do Laus in Ecclesia together. It’s also a commuter parish!

Patrick’s case is worse than mine, because the geography of Phoenix is worse; I am at a centrally-located parish in a city, although people don’t live as close as they can (their revealed preference is a hobby farm where they can come once a week on Sunday morning, not a suburban house that is close enough to come multiple times a week to liturgies and to a schola rehearsal in the case of the men).

And I am telling you this also from a place of having known the diminished liturgy (it’s very frustrating that you assume that we take this POV only because several of us do the full liturgy).

And you know what happens when even the psalm tones are not able to be done? Mass VIII, Credo III, and the ceremonies of low Mass. totally illicit, bonkers, but very French.

What of those who have Low Mass only? For them, the move to Sung Mass with its ceremonies is a vast enrichment. They have an opportunity to learn the Ordinary of the Mass and many other things besides. Their volunteers may also have the opportunity to learn the propers over time. The full propers may always be beyond them. Perhaps they will only learn some. Surely, this is an enrichment, not an impoverishment?

No, because see above. It is too closely tethered to a low Mass mindset in a bad way, it resembles the way that Musicam Sacram allows you to do a full Mass but not sing the propers even once, or to reduce them in perfect liceity…and the real trouble spot is that the Missa cantata with incense is all well and good but it’s a recent development. Many of these places struggling to get a stable TLM also lack servers (though everyone lacks singers…). They should do the Roman sung Mass with the ceremonies of low Mass.

But in both cases, people like Bill Riccio will fly out to train servers and ministers. I don’t know who would do so for music, and who would be willing to do a few Zoom sessions before flying out after a nascent schola does something like Laus in Ecclesia (people have to put some work in) in order to have competent direction for a first sung Mass. It’s simply the best way forward. And yeah, it’s a sacrifice of time and money, but nothing is free or handed to you, so…