Do you sing the Mass Ordinary in read Mass?
  • LarsLars
    Posts: 136
    I had an argument with a few of my choir people regarding singing the Mass Ordinary. They told me they almost never sung the Mass parts and only did the 4-hymn sandwich. I tried to convince them that the Church asks us to sing the Mass rather than merely sing at the Mass. I'm re-reading the Musicam Sacram and I cant find anything to substantiate that.. It talks about the distinction between solemn, sung and read Mass, and all our Masses are low/read, which means anything goes...(Musicam Sacram 36.). Do you sing the Mass Ordinary in read Mass?
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 392
    Am I correct in thinking you are talking about the TLM?
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    Prof Mahrt answered this question years ago on this forum. Let’s see if I can remember the order of importance. I might be able to dig it up because I’m not sure he answered a whole lot of things on the forum. However, here it is from memory…

    1 Priest chant his dialogue parts
    2 People/choir chant their responses (prob includes RP in NO)
    3 People/choir sing the ordinary
    4 Choir sings the Propers
    5 Hymns and other polyphony.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • AbbysmumAbbysmum
    Posts: 145
    I think you're talking about sung degrees, which is discussed at https://churchmusicassociation.org/sungdegrees/
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    Hmmm… my observation is not directly answering your question but addressing which parts are most important to be sung. Singing hymns st mass is actually the last addition to what should take presidence.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 1,095
    Please keep in mind that the degrees Musicam sacram (1967) lays out, are mainly about degrees of participation of the people.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • TLMlover
    Posts: 79
    I am in a similar quandary, because neither of our two priests sing ANY of their parts at Mass, ever.

    In reading and wracking my brain over the sung degrees I have come to the conclusion that if the priest doesn't sing his parts, we should not sing anything st all, either, not even hymns. Someone please correct me on this if I'm wrong, but it sure seems that way when you read the passage about sung degrees.

    However, we are a small church with only one Mass on Sunday, and I feel very strongly about having a sung Mass with all the propers, sung ordinary, and Marian antiphon. We usually also sing three hymns but not always. No hymns during Lent.

    So I know I"m not following the theory of the sung degrees but I would find it sad to not have a sung Mass on Sunday. And I think people might leave the parish if it were a low Mass every Sunday. Personally I love low Mass but not everybody does.

    This is the disaster of the NO.
  • LarsLars
    Posts: 136
    Sorry about the confusion @fcb . It's a NO.
    It's exactly the same as @TLMlover . Priests do not chant anything.
    Thanked by 2tomjaw francis
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    At the risk of contraversial opinions, I think the NO downgrades and diminished the role of Alter Christus (Personae Christi). It upgrades and promotes the role of the laity. This blurring of roles and actions has an extreme psychological impact on the modus operandi of the liturgy and its participants. Girl altar servers contribute to the psychological impact of decentralizing the very Alter Christus as God came and established the priesthood of men as his disciples to carry out his intentions.

    Jesus did everything on that rock. The people simply stood and watched. His devotees wept and rended their hearts. The enemies mocked and blasphemed. This is how the sacrifice is carried out in the VO. All are focused on the priest, HIS actions, HIS intentions. A priest loses his personal identity and fully takes on the Alter role. Altar boys see this plainly and aspire to become an Alter. Boys becoming men generally do not aspire to the role of the NO priest. The priest must be a “personality.” This is a serious distortion.

    In the NO, concelebration was introduced. This is another pschological displacement of the Alter Christus, making Christ a “congregation of those who are ordained”, which strips the priest of his central identity on the altar. It is silly and damaging to have more than one Alter Christus during a Mass.

    I could go on and on, but the point here is that what is crucial (the chanting of the priest) is perceived as “not that important” or optional at best… the “celebrant” is now a “presider” and just one of the equal actors in the drama… desecration [To violate the sacredness of; profane. (AHD).] Of course this opens Pandoras box to the flaws of the New Mass, but musicians are the flash point in this theological struggle and the carnage is obvious.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    The option for celebrant priests to choose to not chant the Mass was introduced with...Low Masses many centuries ago.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Lars
  • fcbfcb
    Posts: 392
    This is the disaster of the NO.


    Could you expand on this? Doesn't the NO allow for having singing at Mass (including proper and ordinary) even if the priest won't/can't sing? It seems to me that you're much more likely to have a steady diet of Mass w/out music with the TLM.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302
    But not on Sundays and feasts and the Mass itself is sung in that case, whereas either only the parts that can easily be read are sung when nothing else is, or it’s sung in full—except for the recited interlude.

    The pre-1967 all or nothing paradigm causes problems but it does not lead to the four-hymn sandwich reigning supreme as a norm. Musicam sacram (inadvertently) does this.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302

    The option for celebrant priests to choose to not chant the Mass was introduced with...Low Masses many centuries ago.
    no, because the normative liturgy is sung and when you do chant the Mass you chant most all of it per the rubrics.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    because the normative liturgy is sung


    A norm "More honour'd in the breach than the observance" given the dominance of Low Mass as the most common observed form.
  • @MatthewRoth how does MS inadvertently cause the four-hymn sandwich?
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • @AugustBerchelmann

    "(Presumptively) confirm" might be a better way to describe the outcome than "cause."
    The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion, can be retained according to the judgment of the competent territorial authority, as long as songs of this sort are in keeping with the parts of the Mass, with the feast or with the liturgical season. It is for the same territorial authority to approve the texts of these songs.

    Musicam Sacram 32 (emphasis added)
  • It is silly and damaging to have more than one Alter Christus during a Mass.

    Not to get technical, but all priests regardless of what they’re doing (ie: concelebrating, sitting in choir, out doing normal people things, laicized, etc) are an “alter Christus” by the nature of their ordination. What you’re referring to is acting in persona Christi, which is what priests do when they confer the sacraments.

    I personally find concelebration more on the irritating side of things (I find it disrupts the natural flow and cadence of the Eucharistic prayer, which takes away my focus, and then I have to deal with all the distractions around me again.) It also makes it more challenging to chant the entire Eucharistic prayer. I wouldn’t mind some mutual enrichment from the Book of Divine Worship the way they solemn Masses with more than one priest present. It’s a lot more similar to the EF with a subdeacon and deacon.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • "(Presumptively) confirm" might be a better way to describe the outcome than "cause."


    Dobszay and Skeris would call this the anthrax in the envelope. It may not be the material cause or origin of the practice, but it is certainly an efficient cause of its widespread adoption.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302
    well, it's a cause, I think (as Dr Weaver points out): the propers are now equally interchangeable with anything else, and there's nothing less fitting about doing so, even if all things are equal, i.e. you can actually sing the (full) propers. Today in my chant class, I asked the group if they knew what Alleluia meant and explained that fine, it's a step up to sing the mode VI antiphon of the Paschal Vigil, but let's go back to Advent I (they had already listened to the introit Ad te levavi) and explained that the jubilus is pretty important because of what Alleluia means and then I sang the (to many of us here anyway) familiar mode VIII Alleluia with its jubilus (I left off the verse for the sake of time); it's simply crazy that 99% of people in that room would never have been exposed to the melismatic chants that inspire contemplation in response to the readings. I didn't even mention that in the NO you have to sing it or you just don't do the Alleluia at all, never mind that every option is on equal footing in terms of fittingness. I just believe in saying "here are the propers, here's the chanted ordinary, the office, the devotional and benediction chants: do them first, whatever else you may do that is good and worthy".
  • To @Lars' comment:
    I tried to convince them that the Church asks us to sing the Mass rather than merely sing at the Mass. I'm re-reading the Musicam Sacram and I can't find anything to substantiate that.

    The passage you may be looking for is in the Consilium's Notitiae 5, 406 (emphasis added):
    The question has been raised from several quarters whether the formula from the Instruction on Sacred Music and the Sacred Liturgy, of September 3, 1958, at number 33, is still valid: "In recited Masses, popular religious songs may be sung by the faithful, provided, however, that they are entirely consistent with the individual parts of the Mass."

    This formula is outdated (It. superata).

    It is the Mass itself, the Ordinary and the Proper, that should be sung, and not "something," even if it is entirely consistent, that is superimposed on the Mass. Because the action is unique, it has only one face, one accent, one voice: the voice of the Church. To continue singing motets, even devout and pious ones (such as the Lauda Sion at the offertory on the feast of a saint), but extraneous to the Mass, instead of the texts of the Mass being celebrated, means continuing an inadmissible ambiguity: giving chaff instead of good wheat, watered-down wine instead of generous wine.

    Because in liturgical singing, we are interested not only in the melody, but also in the words, the text, the thought, the feelings clothed in poetry and melody. Now, these texts must be those of the Mass, not others. Therefore, sing the Mass, and not just sing during the Mass.

    Depending on whom you ask and their working definitions of terms in question, this is conditionally contradicted in the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the Dioceses of the United States (condition emphasized):
    In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduale Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant* that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

    To @Lars' question:
    Do you sing the Mass Ordinary in read Mass?

    In our locale, most of our Sunday Masses are read Masses**. At these, most the Mass Ordinary is sung, and a good amount of the Order of Mass as well, though not in an order that suggests moving towards Sung Mass as described in Musicam Sacram 28-31.

    *What makes a chant "liturgical"? Blood? The will of the flesh? The will of man?

    **Sung Masses are according to the usus antiquior.
    Thanked by 2Lars CHGiffen
  • it's simply crazy that 99% of people in that room would never have been exposed to the melismatic chants that inspire contemplation in response to the readings.

    In fairness, singing the full chant propers wasn’t the the standard parish norm prior to Vatican II, and I’m not referring to low Mass with the four hymn sandwich. Because of resources, the simple forms of the propers were the norm for a lot of smaller parishes. It was also discovered during COVID that there was an entirely separate set of rubrics for the Triduum for parishes that didn’t have sufficient servers and ministers to have the usual liturgies with all the ceremonies. We almost didn’t have a Triduum because people in charge assumed that parishes everywhere before Vatican II had all these big sung Masses with a schola and choir, lots of altar boys, etc.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    Not to get technical, but all priests regardless of what they’re doing (ie: concelebrating, sitting in choir, out doing normal people things, laicized, etc) are an “alter Christus” by the nature of their ordination. What you’re referring to is acting in persona Christi, which is what priests do when they confer the sacraments.
    yes… i did refer to to “in personae Christi” initially… but during the Mass it seems to be an aboration to have multiple priests doing what the high priest has always accomplished as a single representative. It appears that much of it continually wanders away from, waters down and even contradicts what has always been done.

    Another comment came to me privately…

    Hi Francis. You mentioned that NO priests tend to need a "personality"

    Wouldn't you say that certain TLM priests also do that? Some celebrate the liturgy differently than others, and many of them have a distinct style of preaching
    I have not experienced priests celebrating the VO to insert their personality, opinions, comments, and idiosyncrasies into the rite. IMMHO, preaching is where “personality” rightly displays personal charisms of intellect, knowledge, virtue, etc. and the only fitting place where it naturally shines.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • Benton
    Posts: 22
    To answer the original question, it is perfectly fine to sing the Mass Ordinary when other things aren’t sung. Of course, the Church teaches us the ideals, but allows us the freedom to customize to our own situations.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,648
    MatthewRoth - maybe just an Anglo-Saxon thing, but,
    Fortescue 'Ceremonies...' Second Edition New Impression 1920 p.41
    Although High Mass, historically, is the original rite, so that Low Mass is really only a shortened form of that, nevertheless, ...

    Heenan, at the 1967 Synod of Bishops
    Our people love the Mass, but it is Low Mass unembellished by singing to which they are chiefly attached.

    Bugnini, Reform p.358 (tr. O'Connell)
    The English speaking segment of the Synod was decisively influenced by the fear that the intention behind the normative Mass was to do away with the read Mass (which is so important in English-speaking regions), ...
    N.B. All three were enthusiasts for sung Mass.
    However I blame the SCR bureaucrats for setting out the Ritus servandus as though the Solemn Mass is an addition to the Low Mass.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302

    In fairness, singing the full chant propers wasn’t the the standard parish norm prior to Vatican II, and I’m not referring to low Mass with the four hymn sandwich.


    No one said otherwise! I am fully aware of the problems. Nevertheless the solution is not to jettison the propers entirely.

    However I blame the SCR bureaucrats for setting out the Ritus servandus as though the Solemn Mass is an addition to the Low Mass.

    The real problem is that the RS was not the end-all, be-all. The Caeremoniale Episcoporum is decidedly not low Mass with high Mass glued on to it.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • FSSPmusic
    Posts: 452
    *What makes a chant "liturgical"? Blood? The will of the flesh? The will of man?
    The latter! Apparently a text approved by the bishops' conference. The Latin:
    alius cantus, actioni sacrae, diei vel temporis indoli congruus, cuius textus a Conferentia Episcoporum sit approbatus.
    Presumably a Latin text from the liturgy itself or from scripture needs no explicit approval, so the context must concern vernacular texts and translations or, far less likely, extraliturgical devotional Latin texts sung as motets or congregational hymns.

    So, we see that the GIRM itself contradicts the "sing the Mass rather than merely sing at the Mass" principle, but now instead of the "chaff" and "watered-down wine" of Latin motets replacing propers, the junk food and Kool-Aid of religious songs composed within the last 60 years is offered. Instead of the deprecated "Lauda Sion at the offertory on the feast of a saint," you'll hear "Blest Are They" if someone's really trying to stick with the theme, otherwise perhaps "Here I Am, Lord," "On Eagles' Wings," "Be Not Afraid," "The Swan," or even "Imagine." Sure, there have been texts and compositions of genuine artistic value in recent decades, but we all know the kind of stuff that's mainstream rather than the "inadmissible ambiguity" its ilk ought to be.
  • Do you sing the Mass Ordinary in read Mass?

    My choir sings the Ordinary of the Mass every Sunday, but the priest almost never sings his "solo" parts, except perhaps on Easter and some other Solemnities. I'm not sure why as he has a very nice voice.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    I'm not sure why as he has a very nice voice.
    it cannot be preferable by those with “nice voices”. It is a standard all must learn to bear with humility, effort and beauty inculcated as best as each one is able. Time must be given to ponder, rehearse, excersize and imbue the liturgy with all the voices of all present, each taking their own particular part.
    Thanked by 3tomjaw CHGiffen Lars
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,926
    In fairness, singing the full chant propers wasn’t the the standard parish norm prior to Vatican II

    In every small English Parish church they checked it was normal to have a High Sarum Mass on every Sunday and every Feast. This was part of a Sarum Use academic investigation. If they could do it why can't we? Well not we inclusive my 17 year old son can chant like an expert.

    To answer the original question, it is perfectly fine to sing the Mass Ordinary
    In the N.O. this should be true but does an official document agree?

    Heenan, at the 1967 Synod of Bishops
    He was speaking from experience among the poor. The low Mass was popular as working men that made up most of the Catholics in Westminster, had to go to work. The Masses were arranged so that men could skip breakfast or lunch to go to daily Mass. +Heenan would be seen at the back or outside his parishes during Mass so knew what he was talking about. These comments are from recollections Colin Mawby made of the Cardinal!

    What makes a chant "liturgical

    The music in say the Liber is of two different kinds, Liturgical music propers etc. and non-Liturgical music Ave Verum etc.

    So Liturgical music would refer to pieces that have or had a Liturgical place.
    Thanked by 3davido CHGiffen Lars
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,648
    In every small English Parish church they checked it was normal to have a High Sarum Mass on every Sunday and every Feast.
    @tomjaw that sounds interesting. Who are 'they', and when did they do their checking? Can you give a reference where I could pursue this.

    The N.O. Missal on the altar contains notation for the priest to sing in English everything that he can, fully notates Prefaces, Eucharistic Prayers as well as the dialogues etc.. GIRM 40. & 41. assume that the Ordinary may be sung:
    ... Although it is not always necessary (e.g., in weekday Masses) to sing all the texts that are in principle meant to be sung, ... Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy ... some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin, ...
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • TLMlover
    Posts: 79
    "These degrees are so arranged that the first may be used even by itself, but the second and third, wholly or partially, may never be used without the first."

    To me, this means we should not sing the ordinary or anything else if the priest is not chanting his parts as outlined in the first degree.

    But does Musicam Sacram apply to the NO or just to the VO? Written in 1967 - maybe just applies to the VO?


    Continuation of GIRM 40:

    "...every care should be taken that singing by the ministers and the people not be absent in celebrations that occur on Sundays and on Holydays of Obligation.

    However, in the choosing of the parts actually to be sung, preference is to be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those which are to be sung by the Priest or the Deacon or a reader, with the people replying, or by the Priest and people together.[49]"

    So, the GIRM here refers back to the sung degrees of Musicam Sacram. But it's not as strongly worded as MS... "preference is to be given" isn't "may never," so it's the same old disaster of the NO (to answer fcb's request): we want people to sing on Sunday but we prefer the priest ro sing his parts. Makes no sense, so just do whatever you want.

    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    To the extent of a conflict between MS and the subsequent edition of the Roman Missal, the latter would govern.

    Thanked by 2Lars CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302
    It does not apply to the usus antiquior. It was not superseded, not entirely at least, by the NO legislation.

    But also I think that trying to reconcile things in favor of the second, obviously more stupid document is useless. I think that it is bad that priests sing bits here and there and never do more. It is bad that bishops and older priests don’t sing even in English when visiting the unicorn NO parish.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • GerardH
    Posts: 631
    In the Eastern churches I hear a man won't be ordained unless he can sing. Would that the same applied in the West.
  • In the Eastern churches I hear a man won't be ordained unless he can sing. Would that the same applied in the West.

    Meh, I wouldn’t go that far. We need priests and there’s a shortage of them already. There are some who really can’t sing. They try, and were taught in seminary, but something completely different comes out than what was intoned. It baffles me, since it’s something that comes so naturally to me, but I’m starting to think that some people might have an auditory processing dysfunction that prevents them from being able to sing.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,926
    @a_f_hawkins
    This was the research project,
    http://www.experienceofworship.org.uk
    We had a talk on it from Christopher Hodkinson

    At least some of the material was published...

    The key to full sung Liturgy was due to the Chantries, with the employment of Priests and young men / boy to perform the Liturgy for the Dead, they could then repair to the Parish church to assist.
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    So that was a reconstruction of medieval, pre-Reformation praxis (a period where English churches often had many people who held benefices for positions whose responsibilities included singing), not from the Tridentine era forward.
    Thanked by 2Lars CHGiffen
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,926
    @Liam after that being a Catholic in England was considered to be a crime. Being caught at a Mass could be fatal! Low Mass would have been far safer. Of course Byrd wrote his music for the Mass and it was used, although being a favourite of bl**dy Elizabeth he was not likely to be arrested.

    The route to full sung liturgy is commitment. Commit your time to do this or commit money to pay for the choir / servers, or provide them from the parish school (What is the most important thing they can do in a day?).

    I suspect that for most Western Catholics the time spent online would provide more than enough time to support Full Sung daily Liturgy.
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302
    lol that’s harsh but often true.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    Of course, the Church of England in its ostensible via media retained the system of benefice holders responsible directly or indirectly for sung liturgy - and in the 19th century, getting rid of that system turned out often to be necessary to improve the liturgical music at the parish, great church, collegiate chapel, and cathedral levels.
    Thanked by 3Lars CHGiffen tomjaw
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302
    Well

    Now it’s completely collapsed and people don’t even read the offices.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    As it turns out ... the Atlas of liturgical music praxis was a historical artifact ... the system of patronage - of monasteries, of cathedrals, of great churches, of collegiate chapels, of parishes, and of chapels of ease. We have nothing like that now, and for the Catholic church it was mostly swept away by the era of absolutism (centralization) and then the era of revolution.
    Thanked by 2Lars CHGiffen
  • MatthewRoth
    Posts: 3,302
    Honestly it was really the Enlightenment (Joseph II) and the revolutions…
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,648
    TLMlover - I disagree about nature of the 'disaster'. True there is a fundamental break from the SRC policy in the VO, but setting up an organisation to police the rubrics was not part of the 1570 vision, still less that of Trent. The NO is deliberately a road rather than a railway, if I may use an analogy. There are limits but also freedom of manoeuver.
    The causes of the disaster are various and include :

    - total lack of liturgical education pre VII, and widespread failure to provide what SC mandated
    ... a prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy. Wherefore the sacred Council has decided to enact as follows:

    15. Professors who are appointed to teach liturgy in seminaries, religious houses of study, and theological faculties must be properly trained for their work in institutes which specialize in this subject.

    16. The study of sacred liturgy is to be ranked among the compulsory and major courses in seminaries and religious houses of studies; in theological faculties it is to rank among the principal courses. It is to be taught under its theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects. ...

    - having bishops like Rembert Weakland policing the limits

    - a precipitate rush to produce a complete revision, and then not allowing for a process of review and structural adjustment (of the Latin original).
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Lars
  • tomjaw
    Posts: 2,926
    @a_f_hawkins

    So the production by Dom Gueranger of the Liturgical Year, and other books, the production of an array of Daily Hand Missals, and the various books explaining the Liturgy for adults and children over the years 1850-1950 does not count as Liturgical education?
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    So the production by Dom Gueranger of the Liturgical Year, and other books, the production of an array of Daily Hand Missals, and the various books explaining the Liturgy for adults and children over the years 1850-1950 does not count as Liturgical education?

    Tom, don’t be silly! We all know that the NO reset the theological clock back to year 1.

    True there is a fundamental break from the SRC policy in the VO

    Correction
    True there is a fundamental break from the VO in the SRC policy.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 349
    To the extent that the Church has said anything about the proper priority of singing, it's the Musicam sacram stack of priest and responses, then Ordinary, and finally Propers.

    However, we would be hard pressed to find anything that says that we must sing the four hymns and nothing else. Apparently, one can be doctrinaire in either direction.

    I'd suggest you simply show them most missalettes, which shows the responses and Ordinary (usually the Jubilate Deo mass or the Roman Missal chants, but that isn't the point in question; baby steps). This suggests that singing these parts is assumed. The hymns make up the bulk of most missalettes simply because the options are greater; they aren't included in the given texts of Mass because they aren't as important, in a certain sense.

    I guess what I am saying is that you can take the opportunity to show that resources like most missalettes assume more singing than just the hymn sandwich, even though it looks like they give preference to hymns.
    Thanked by 2Lars tomjaw
  • Liam
    Posts: 5,516
    A reminder: the use of the "four hymn sandwich" in Catholic liturgical discussion fora on the old Usenet arose in the context of a recited Mass where that was the only music (or, perhaps also including the responsorial psalm and Gospel acclamation). It wasn't about Propers vs hymns so much as it was about the widespread neglect of singing the dialogues, orations, and Ordinary.
  • RomanticStringsRomanticStrings
    Posts: 349
    By "Propers," I mean to refer broadly to the music that goes at those points, as the hymns are listed by GIRM to be one of several options. For the discussion with the choir, I mean simply to identify the places where music could be by using the general term for those places.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • Chaswjd
    Posts: 302
    This illustrates an issue with the Vertus Ordo. The adherents of the old Mass criticize (sometimes rightly) things that go on in the Novus Ordo. However, because the 1962 missal lacks rubrics for the people, there is actually nothing to prevent much of the NO goings on in the older form. For example, one can complain about polka masses in the NO. But nothing in the 1962 missal would prevent the people at a spoken mass from singing exactly the same melodies (as long as the translation was not too exact) over the priest’s inaudible said ordinary.
    Thanked by 1Lars
  • francis
    Posts: 11,226
    However, because the 1962 missal lacks rubrics for the people
    I would counter this by asserting that the people DID NOT (& continually) DO NOT NEED rubrics as singing the responses, Ordinary, Latin Hymns (Ave Verum, Ave Maria, and others… see the Parish Book of Chant) and the Marian Antiphon were consistent staples that are sung without a hymnal.

    There is nothing technically or intellectually challenging with the chants… children truly are on the same level as the adults bringing them to mature worshippers early in life and which can carry them all the way through the eternal banquet. It’s a repertoire that is never changing, but always expanding just like the dogma and doctrine which the music so beautifully professes.

    @Chaswjd

    Are you putting forward that we would prefer or even consider singing Polka tunes at the VO?
    Thanked by 1Lars