Volunteer Choir leaders needing guidance
  • dranzal
    Posts: 4
    I have been in my parish choir for 23 years, and other choirs for years before that. I have been the leader for the last 3 years and the music I choose is more "traditional/neo-traditional" than any of the other choirs I've been in.
    That said, a "trained" liturgist suggested to me this morning that most of what parishes do, musically, is NOT liturgical and incorrect.

    1. I agree that most parishes (ALL parishes I've been to) do not know the propers/antiphons and, instead, do hymns of varying quality. How much of a problems is this "four hymn sandwich" type of planning. That's literally all I've ever experienced, even in the most conservative parish I've visited. This is all I experience at any nearby parish and even the Cathedral I visited in Idaho and the traditional Catholic college my daughter graduated from.

    2. Is it appropriate at all for a choir to sing a choral piece, such as "This is My Word" by Pepper Choplin or "Surely the Presence" during or after Communion? I've seen some better choirs do this, but the liturgist I saw today very much frowned upon it, even if the words of the piece are explicitly Scriptural.

    3. I saw mention of "Three Days" in another thread. The only one I know (recently learned) is Thaxted. I agree that the theology is a little soft, so I wrote an additional, theologically meaty, verse. Is this the one that everyone dislikes?

    Sorry for the randomness. I'm new.
    Thanked by 1probe
  • Don9of11Don9of11
    Posts: 862
    @dranzal, welcome to the forum. After nearly 50 years as choir member I dedicated myself to doing a hymnological study of my parish of St. Mary's, it's called A Parish Inheritance

    It contains a definition of Catholic hymn in the Church’s own language and presents the hymns we sang past and present in my Parish, and how the repertoire changed overtime. I established a four fold classification C1-C4: liturgical, devotional, Protestant origin, and not suitable. Along with other resources that can help pastors, pastoral council, musicians, choir members, determine and identify if hymns are appropriate for Mass. I think this can help you as it covers some of your concerns.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen dranzal
  • probe
    Posts: 203
    Welcome to the forum, from a recent member thinking about the same things.
    I look forward to the replies from the experienced members.
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,696
    Your 'trained' liturgist is probably largely correct, but the authoritative source is the GIRM for your country [eg (for USA) :- https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html ]
    Read through that and you will see that there is a great deal of flexibility. Most of those on this forum, and most 'liturgists' would prefer the texts officially proposed by the Church, as would I, but in practice most places hardly use them.
    Thanked by 2dranzal PaxMelodious
  • novusgordo
    Posts: 30
    If your parish is currently in the "four-hymn sandwich" mindset, the absolute first thing you need to start doing is making sure you're singing as much of the Order of Mass as you can, and especially the things listed in the "first degree" in Musicam sacram (refer to paras. 28–31). Don't worry about trying to replace things you're already singing until you make sure you're singing all the things you're supposed to!

    (And yes, part of this is going to mean training the clergy of the parish to sing. You can't have a sung Mass without the clergy at least chanting things recto tono or to some of the simpler sung tones.)
    Thanked by 2LauraKaz Abbysmum
  • a_f_hawkins
    Posts: 3,696
    But notice that some things are changed between MS and GIRM (currently 4th? edition) particularly at #31(c) the Alleluia before the Gospel now must be sung, or if not sung should be omitted! (I only ever knew one priest omit it).
    [EDIT] the directive in its strong form is here at #23 https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/general-introduction-to-the-lectionary-second-edition-2189
    Thanked by 2Roborgelmeister CHGiffen
  • probe
    Posts: 203
    I hadn't noticed that 'must/should not'. The Gospel Acclamation is only sung by two of the rota of readers at our Mass, the rest say they spare the congregation their unmusical voices. I checked that here and indeed the guidance says the same except it says 'may' rather than 'should' which is more permissive:
    https://www.catholicbishops.ie/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Singing-the-Mystery-of-Faith.pdf
    The ‘alleluia’ of the acclamation is normally sung by a cantor and repeated by all. The Gospel Acclamation is intended to be sung, and should rank high in the list of musical priorities. It is also among the easier of the liturgical texts to sing and greatly facilitates congregational singing. If it is not sung it may be omitted, because of its innately musical character.

    The Vatican document also refers to incense, which reads like a very High Mass to me. I have seen it in one of the Masses on a Sunday in a cathedral, otherwise I've rarely seen it.
  • dranzal
    Posts: 4
    the things listed in the "first degree" in Musicam sacram (refer to paras. 28–31)


    In your experience, what are the parts of the Mass that choirs commonly miss?
    Parishes I've been to commonly sing:
    Entrance hymn
    Kyrie; Gloria
    Psalm; Gospel Acclamation
    Offertory hymn
    Sanctus; Memorial Acc.; Amen; Agnus Dei
    Eucharist Hymn
    Recessional Hymn

    I see the Lord's Prayer listed as 1st degree. I had not realized this, and will mention to Fr.
  • dranzal
    Posts: 4
    Most of those on this forum, and most 'liturgists' would prefer the texts officially proposed by the Church, as would I, but in practice most places hardly use them.


    I have long been familiar with "Sing to the Lord" document. The flexibility is certainly exercised by most parishes. It was the force with which she insisted that a song was "not liturgical" and not to be sung at Mass that gave me pause. She said this before subbing as pianist for a choir that I know uses more modern selections (Spirit and Song).

    I've been singing for decades, often in choirs with other trained liturgists who would include beautiful polyphony-esque anthems during Communion.
    My conclusion is that "trained liturgists" apply the relevant documents differently. This is fine since flexibility is built in. They should not, however, insist on their application being the only correct one. The goal is proper, reverent music with sound theology and scripture preferably executed in a pleasing way.
  • dranzal
    Posts: 4
    Another question about flexibility.
    Do all the chosen anthems have to necessarily be from approved sources? Is this the case even if the text is very scriptural? Thinking specifically of "This is My Word" by Pepper Choplin which I mentioned above.
    I was in a parish that loved that piece. It is very beautiful and scriptural.

  • AbbysmumAbbysmum
    Posts: 196
    I have a love/hate relationship with Pepper Choplin. The pieces are accessible for sure, and quick and easy for a choir to learn. And very often they are very scriptural. Ones like The Coming of the Lord and People Who Walked in Darkness come to mind. One thing that I find about Pepper Choplin is that it's sort of like John Rutter - once you've sung one, you've kinda sung them all, musically-speaking.

    But they are performances pieces, not liturgical music. Just because something is religious or religious-themed doesn't make it liturgical. To make it liturgical, it has to support the act of worship, but also I think intention is important here. I am not an authority on the subject, but my sense tells me that something can't really be liturgical music if it's not intended to be.

    You can contrast it to some contemporary composers who do write liturgical music - composers like Marco Frisina and Paul Jernberg - and it's not only stylistically very different, but the way the text is used is quite different. It was also purpose-written to support the liturgy. Roman Hurko and Kevin Allen would be two more examples. Maybe explore their music a little bit, and you'll start to see the difference.

    Hopefully that's helpful. I'm on a parallel journey with you, and that's what I've gleaned so far.
    Thanked by 3CHGiffen probe LauraKaz
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 793
    3. I saw mention of "Three Days" in another thread. The only one I know (recently learned) is Thaxted. I agree that the theology is a little soft, so I wrote an additional, theologically meaty, verse. Is this the one that everyone dislikes?

    I was the one who brought this up.

    It’s not that it’s theology “is a little soft”. It has three words that create a glaring theological error that essentially contradicts the entire prophecy of the Old Testament of the Jesus’ coming as the Messiah and is the unblemished sacrificial lamb. Those words are, “his broken body”. His body wasn’t broken, and in this instance, one cannot take artistic liberties on this. John’s Gospel specifically states that whereas the other two thieves had their legs broken, Jesus’ legs weren’t broken as to fulfill the Old Testament that none of his bones would be broken. His body wasn’t broken; his side was pierced. Words matter.

    There’s also the theological issue in verse 3 that speaks about how Jesus’ body continues to suffer, which is also theologically incorrect. Jesus’ glorified body cannot suffer anymore. Yes, his wounds remain, but they’ve been glorified. There’s no suffering in Heaven. Furthermore, the “performance notes” state that Jesus’ continues to be crucified. Not to mention it presumes the congregation is too dumb and incompetent to know Thaxt to sing all the verses.

    I always have mixed feelings about this hymn every Easter. Since it’s a sin to sing heretical hymns, I can’t sing it during Mass. Instead I have to ignore the text and meditate on the instrumental score instead.
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 3,001
    Don't know the song in question, but I see Jesus' Body broken and shared at least once a week.
  • SponsaChristi
    Posts: 793
    Don't know the song in question, but I see Jesus' Body broken and shared at least once a week.

    It’s specifically referencing Easter Sunday and Jesus’ “broken” crucified body being gone, not communion. The scriptures specifically state they didn’t break his body so that the scriptures would be fulfilled.

    This particular issue could easily be corrected by the original composer by changing “broken” to “pierced” and pronouncing it as two syllables, “pier-ced”. I’ve contemplated writing to OCP about getting this corrected so that it’s theologically correct, but honestly, the more I read the lyrics to this piece, the more I want it completely re-written to be less “us” focused and less insipid. I find it rather ironic that the choral versions of a lot of hymns OCP issues is written to be sung entirely by the choir while the congregation sits there, which is specifically contradictory to the Church’s most recent documents on sacred music and hymns. Meanwhile Protestants have these great strong choral arrangements with great descants that encourage congregational singing.
    Thanked by 2novusgordo Charles
Add a Comment