What about the ordinary? Any Latin? And does the priest sing his parts or speak them?

I've been doing the same kind of project for almost 6 months now. I honestly didn't go super slowly because I am who I am and so is my pastor, haha, but here's what I've got from my limited experience up to now.

- I worked first from adding things rather than replacing them. I haven't yet added an Entrance antiphon, I've just done the Communion antiphon, and we've also added the Marian antiphon at the end of Mass after the final blessing and St. Michael prayer, then followed by the recessional.

- The pastor is leaning into chanting more and more of his parts, which I think is really key. I think it's important to tune people's ears to chant as being an integral part of the liturgy in that way. I've worked on some specific chants with him like the Exultet, and am planning to work on chant with the deacons as well. I'm also personally part of the Ordinariate (the church where I am DoM is diocesan) and one of our last pastors valiantly struggled through the massive amounts of chant despite a pretty shaky grasp of the pitch, and it was fine. You just lead the community's chanted responses really strongly to help.

- Timing some things with liturgical seasons can be helpful, but I think it would be good to go one thing at a time as far as the big things. Chant propers instead of hymns will feel huge even if it's an addition rather than a replacement depending on your congregation.

- I've never been a big fan of taking up time before the Mass begins to announce or teach something, but the congregation at this parish is responding well to it. This particular parish likes a lot of catechesis, teaching, etc. So when I introduced the Marian antiphon, I gave a short (like, one or two paragraphs) explanation of the history and then sang through it with everyone. I've also gotten good feedback from things like bulletin announcements and Flocknote columns--for the latter, I've been giving a short introduction to one of the hymns I'm using that weekend that I think people probably don't know, then include text and a recording for people to familiarize themselves.

- I still keep some of the folksy music here and there and try to use as much familiar music as I can. The parish has used Breaking Bread for years and I actually downloaded the index as an Excel spreadsheet and have been working through various columns: talking through the Faith Formation coordinator who has been here a long time to get a sense of what music is familiar to the parish, what they know very well, etc; looking at getting the same kind of info from other people; and also including a column for me where I note if something is a yes with no reservations, yes for now, maybe, absolutely not. I find people do know at least *some* traditional hymns, and for the rest I spend a good amount of time figuring out which ones I'm still willing to use. I went a little too hard with just more traditional hymns for a while, but I think if I had kept going slowly and continuing to use the less offensive OCP stuff I would have been able to transition more smoothly.

Some other observations: my experience has been that there is a small minority who are really opposed and are even likely to leave to seek out what they're looking for; a lot of those people can't really be reached easily. There's another small minority (maybe larger than the other group) who has been hoping for these kinds of changes and are excited for the reverence they signal. The much larger majority group is in the middle, ranging from upset but kind of open to just politely confused. I think those are the people you target--understanding why things are changing, that there's a reason beyond just personal preferences, and that there's a desire to conform more to the spirit of the liturgy and to the directives of the Church, helps a lot to sway them. But there's also a lot of deeply emotional attachment to the particular musical style so it helps to go slowly in order to get people used to the idea.

The idea of adding instead of replacing is very sound advice. In order to make sweeping changes, you typically need to cater to everyone throughout the process. And it is a long process.

I will echo others here by advising you to add propers in conjunction with the hymns as opposed to an either/or approach. There is nothing wrong with following the processional hymn with the introit, singing the offertory/communion before also singing a hymn, etc. This ruffles fewer feathers, as the people get to keep their beloved hymns.

It is also essential that your priest (perhaps with your assistance) learn to sing his parts. A robust, high church musical program with a cleric who doesn't sing is incongruous and strange.

I don't have as much experience as many others on this forum, but I've been doing something similar for the last 5 years at a pretty typical small suburban parish. Most of my mistakes have involved either going too fast (even though I am moving agonisingly slowly from my point of view) and needing to backtrack; or experimenting with various compromise ideas that satisfied no-one.

I echo everyone else when I say that it is essential that the pastor leads by singing his part. And that it is better to add propers rather than remove hymns. I'd also be careful to go much more slowly than you think you need to go. And make sure that people understand why you're making changes and what the church wants; it's especially important to gain the trust of the most important/powerful/vocal parishioners and explain your rational to them.

I'd leave the processional hymn alone for now; eliminating it is one of the mistakes I made (which I reverted after about 6 months). Of all the hymn slots, this is the one that will get you the most complaints if removed. It's also the best bang for your buck: you can put your popular but mediocre hymns here to start off on an agreeable note without disrupting the more sacred parts of Mass, and you can play only the best one or two verses to time with the procession. Also, when you're changing (or reintroducing) the parish repertoire of hymns, you'll want all the hymn slots you can get to help the congregation practise and remember the new hymns.

Here's some concrete steps I would recommend, based on what I've done that worked:

1. Document the current situation. Make a list of hymns and settings of the ordinary that are well known at the parish. Ask other people, especially those who've been here the longest. If you use something like OneLicense, there may be a history available online.

2. Evaluate this list of current repertoire for any particularly egregious theological errors, and eliminate those immediately.

3. Write down a long term plan for what your parish might reasonably be able to achieve 20 years down the track. For example:
- Sing 2-4 hymns each Sunday, depending on season, focusing on offertory, recessional, and maybe processional.
- Sing all propers, mostly in English with occasional Latin, gregorian melody for communion, psalm-tone for offertory.
- The congregation knows a rotation of around 5 ordinaries, at least 2 in Latin, at least one for each category: penitential, ordinary time, festive.
- The congregation can sing a core of around 50 excellent hymns. (I can provide my list on request)
- There is a choir which can sing harmonies for the core congregational hymns, at least a few polyphonic pieces, and possibly some extra hymns.

4. For the first year, I would make no particularly noticeable changes, just consolidate and build reputation, and eliminate the worst offences. For example
- Write down a list of core hymns as per your plan from step 3, and see how much overlap there is with the hymns that are already known (as per step 1). Focus on playing these, with judicious use of other well known hymns for now.
- If there are any gaps (e.g. no advent hymns), very slowly introduce a couple of new hymns one at a time.
- Make easy changes that don't involve the congregation or choir, just the priest or cantor. E.g. the priest singing the dialogues more often, or a cantor singing the communion antiphon while the choir/organist receives communion before the hymn

5. In subsequent years, slowly make other changes. Very slowly. Think in terms of years rather than months or seasons. For example, here's what we've done over the last 5 years:
- Singing the Ordinary. Introduce one new piece every few months, not all at once. So far we've managed to introduce one new setting for a total of three English settings.
- Adding the communion antiphon, always in English but often sung to the gregorian melody (when the cantor has time to learn it). This one was easy because it only relies on one person.
- Singing the responsorial psalm, Gospel acclamation, and offertory antiphon (followed by a hymn).
- For the entrance antiphon, we usually sing a couple of verses of a hymn followed by a versification of the introit (usually from antiphonrenewal.com)
- Introduced some of the special propers for Holy Week (e.g. All Glory Laud and Honour, Pange Lingua)
- In terms of hymns, we're probably singing about one third mediocre but popular hymns, one third well-known good hymns, and one third hymns that we've slowly (re)introduced.
- In terms of Latin, so far all we've managed is a few lines here and there and a couple of verses during Holy Week. Not even the Kyrie. But given the level of push-back this is actually huge progress for us.

Reading this list, it certainly seems like there is an inordinate focus on hymns compared to the propers: that's because the hymns are both the easiest and the hardest to change. Easiest because very few people will notice if you play their favourites 20% less, but hardest because they're the part of the Mass that most people will remember. And, to a certain extent, if the hymns are good and the dialogues are sung, then the propers just slot in without complaint. But the more shallow and further from chant the hymns are, the more jarring the propers will seem in comparison.

Also, be careful not to pigeon-hole Latin and chant into penitential seasons. Mass VIII especially is joyful, much better suited to Christmas or other feast days than Lent.

I have been following this conversation with much interest. Earlier, I suggested my A Parish Inheritance: Hymnological Study. In Appendix A, Understanding Chant, Antiphons, and Hymns, I discuss this topic at some length. My conclusion is that the real question is not whether one should be chosen over the others. Rather, chant, antiphons, and hymns can all work seamlessly together within the Church's liturgical and devotional life.

Many parish musicians, clergy, and congregations are trying to navigate these questions with both fidelity to the Church's tradition and sensitivity to the spiritual life of their communities. I have found it helpful to move away from an "either/or" approach and instead embrace a "both/and" vision. Chant, antiphons, and traditional hymnody each offer something valuable to the Church's prayer and need not be viewed as competing priorities.

Chant gives voice to the Church's ancient prayer and invites us into a spirit of contemplation and reverence. Antiphons connect the liturgy directly to Sacred Scripture and the texts appointed for each Mass. Hymns often carry the faith memories of a parish, expressing devotion through melodies and texts that have formed generations of Catholics.

The pastoral challenge is not choosing one at the expense of the others, but helping them enrich one another. A parish might introduce simple chants during Advent or Lent, sing or recite the proper antiphon before a familiar entrance hymn, or carefully select hymns that reflect the themes of the liturgy and the richness of Catholic doctrine. In this way, tradition can be deepened without unnecessarily disrupting the prayer of the faithful or dismissing the spiritual heritage they have received.

Ultimately, sacred music is at its best when it gently draws hearts toward God and supports the Church's worship. Whether through chant, antiphons, or beloved hymns, our goal is the same: to foster reverent prayer, proclaim the faith clearly, and help the assembly encounter the mystery of Christ with charity, unity, and joy. In that spirit, I believe these three forms are at their strongest not when placed in competition, but when allowed to complement one another as part of the Church's rich musical inheritance.

@JBuckCC

I would like to keep the congregation singing the ordinary, as we should every day be asking for God's mercy, glorifying God, etc. During Lent at the school masses, I have the students sing Mass VIII in Latin, which I would like to keep. My priest is quite shy about singing, as he lacks confidence in his ability and doesn't wish for people to be distracted.

I echo what Clara said about the priest's chanting being key for making any choir and congregational chant feel congruent, and I'd add also for the overall solemnity of the mass. My parish priest is not a great singer but he goes for it anyway, and he improves every year.

I wasn't suggesting taking the ordinary away from the congregation, but was wondering what's currently being sung and if your transition plans include gradual changes there. If something like the "heritage mass" is currently being sung I'd recommend setting your ambitions higher. IMHO it sounds absolutely spastic next to chant.

One slight point of clarification though: just because he was using the hymns to catechize doesn't mean that they were shoehorned into the Liturgy. I would actually love to know more about this (that is to say: when/where/how the aforementioned hymns were used). While hymns may indeed be ancient, that doesn't mean they were part of the Mass in earlier times.

While I can’t speak specifically what St. Ambrose was doing with hymns, from reading the lives of the Saints, they were used in schools to teach children, as well as sung during parish missions (ie: visiting priests coming to a parish to stir up the faith and fervour of the congregation), as well as during processions, etc. There was a time when Catholics came to church more than just for Mass on Sundays and expect to get everything they need during that hour.

@ServiamScores and @SponsaChristi,

I think you're both raising an important historical point: we shouldn't project modern Sunday Mass practices back onto the 4th century. Ambrose's hymns, and Ephrem's Madrashe, were not originally created to function as hymns in a modern four-hymn Mass format. What I have uncovered about St. Ambrose is "bits and pieces" some of which comes from the Hymnal 1940 Companion and other sources.

In Ambrose's case, the earliest evidence points to their use during the Arian crisis in Milan. As Augustine describes in the Confessions, the faithful sang hymns and psalms while keeping vigil in the basilica during the siege. So hymns seem to have entered Christian worship first through the Divine Office and other communal prayer settings rather than the Eucharistic liturgy itself.

They also served a catechetical role beyond formal worship. Because they were memorable, poetic, and packed with Nicene theology, people could learn and carry the faith with them in daily life. In that sense they were powerful tools for forming Christian belief outside the sanctuary as well as within it. What I call "catechism through melody."

For anyone interested in a deeper look at Ambrose's pastoral and theological use of hymnody, this lecture is excellent: Enchantment and Creed in the Hymns of Ambrose of Milan.

You're also right that the traditional music of the Mass was the chant of the Propers and Ordinary. But over time these hymns became so influential that the Church incorporated them into her liturgical tradition, and many eventually found their way into the official books.

So I'd say your critique is basically correct: Ambrosian hymns were not invented to fill an entrance procession or recessional. Their original setting was prayer, catechesis, and communal solidarity. But that's also what makes them so enduring, because they were designed from the beginning to teach and strengthen the faith of ordinary Christians.

One hymn that still appears in missallettes that is attributed to St. Ambrose is "Savior of the Nations Come."

I believe these three forms are at their strongest not when placed in competition, but when allowed to complement one another as part of the Church's rich musical inheritance.

I agree, at least in principle, and use hymns at almost every Mass in my parish. But the devil's in the details, so to speak - how this is actually carried out. Or put another way, music is so powerful that it must be handled with care. And since modern strophic hymns are not proper to the Roman liturgy, we should be doubly cautious here in interpolating these into the Mass itself. The liturgy as a "school of prayer" (Benedict XVI) can easily be distorted when music not proper to the liturgy is allowed to dominate (often by default rather than intention).

If a parish regularly sings 4 hymns at every Mass, this will be the musical focus, regardless of how many of the proper antiphons you are singing. If they are singing mostly devotional hymns, the focus will be more on the personal devotion of the people than the mysteries being celebrated.

My point is that hymns, unless done with care and caution, can take over the Mass both musically and in terms of what is being conveyed by the music. Is the Mass first and foremost the corporate worship of the Most High, or more a collective devotion with music? Does the music serve to bring out the Mystery being celebrated (often via the saint or season) or is it more about our response? This first is better served by the proper antiphons/chants, the second can easily become the focus (again, more by default than anything else) if hymns are the centerpiece of the music. It's not that there is no room for devotion or for our own response to the Mass, but this should be a result of a focus on the Mass itself, rather than being the main event.