When/where did the requiem Mass change?
-
Honestly, where in any documents did the change of focus of the Requiem Mass change from praying for the departed soul to God, to all this expectation of heaven and canonization of the departed?
Has the church formally changed her focus for the funeral Mass or is this a colloquially effected thing that has happened? -
IMO it's mostly colloquially-affected.
Yes, the Missa pro defunctis saw massive changes in the 1970 Missal:- the singing of Alleluias, etc. based on the season;
- the suppression of the Sequence, which is now used in the Office for the last weeks of ordinary time;
- the greater variation of propers and of vestments permitted
IMO the bigger issue is not one specific to the funeral liturgy, but rather a general weakening of the Church's penitential discipline. To be fair, this was in response to a penitential culture than in many cases had become toxic, more about ticking off boxes than growing in holiness and virtue — but as is so often the case, the reformers let themselves swing on the devil's pendulum and massively over-corrected, and far too little has been done to remedy matters since. -
Requiem Masses are still for the repose of the soul with the exception of infants (those under the age of reason). I am unsure if it is so with those who have disabilities that make them mentally below the age of reason and are thus not capable of committing actual sin. I was fairly certain the Church also included them as infants when deciding which Mass to say, but this became confusing when my Diocese posted a RIP on social media for an 11 year old autistic boy whose intellect was below that of a 5 year old. We don’t pray for the repose of the soul of baptized infants because they’re assumed to be in Heaven.Thanked by 1tomjaw
-
Vatican II (Sacrosanctum Concilium, 81) said that "The rite for the burial of the dead should express more clearly the paschal character of Christian death, and should correspond more closely to the circumstances and traditions found in various regions. This holds good also for the liturgical color to be used."
Here's Archbishop Bugnini's own commentary the changes to the funeral rite:
"The Introduction [to the new rite] emphasizes the point that a Christian funeral is a celebration of the paschal mystery of Christ as accomplished in his faithful followers. The need to bring this out was one of the main concerns guiding the reformers.
"To this end they drew from the treasury of euchological tradition texts that would best express this aspect of funerals. At the same time, they got rid of texts that smacked of a negative spirituality inherited from the Middle Ages. Thus they removed such familiar and even beloved texts as the Libera me, Domine, the Dies irae, and others that overemphasized judgment, fear, and despair. These they replaced with texts urging Christian hope and giving more effective expression to faith in the resurrection.
"These changes explain the closer and more organic connection between the funeral and the Eucharistic celebration in the new rite, the restoration of the Alleluia, and the abandonment of the color black for another, which, in the judgment of episcopal conferences, will inspire a calmer approach to sorrow and suggest a hope that is illuminated by the paschal mystery" (Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, pp. 773-74). -
At a funeral last month I was feeling a tiny bit sheepish about being dressed in a dark weekday shirt while the congregation joined us in a rousing "Alleluia". Before reading the Gospel however, our white-robed presider asked everyone to sit first while he sang "Absolve", covering all the bases.
-
The NO doesn’t allow the tract outside of Lent. Also, the propers belonging to the priest, that this, the orations, have been completely revised such that much like those of other Masses, sin, death, and our eternal fate are obscured.
But both the actual texts and the actual rubrics emphasize hope rooted in Christ's sacrifice, not the "all dogs go to heaven" mentality so prevalent in modern Christian culture.
So with respect to my comment: except for that Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?
The office of the dead does maintain some traditional texts, but many others are suppressed, and the Libera me is gone from the funeral. Also, the absolution at the catafalque is suppressed, and they got hives about calling it an absolution even at funerals. Sigh.Thanked by 1dad29 -
I am willing to be corrected, and I know this has been discussed in other places, but I have yet to be convinced that the Dies Irae is suppressed for the novus ordo. There are no positive acts of suppression, and the lack of the sequence in current liturgical books is not sufficient to say it is banned. All of the traditional propers including the libera me can be used with the current missal, as long as the sequence is in the N.O. spot before the alleluia, using alius captus option where relevant for the gradual.
-
lol, yes it is. Omission is suppression in this case. The Sequence is not mentioned, neither in the lectionary, nor in the Graduale Romanum, nor in the Ordo Cantus Missæ. The whole reason for incorporating the Dies Iræ ad libitum in the office was to keep it around in some way; Cardinal Bartolucci was always surprised when asked to sing the Sequence at funerals in Rome, as other cardinals did not understand the depth of the changes.
Of course, you can do whatever you want, and I don't care if you do the real Libera Me, but I do think that there's an integrity in doing the rubrics as they're written, especially if you only do, in your current situation the NO*: it's one thing to decide that Bugnini's various replies saying to do anything but the old way aren't especially binding because Notitiæ isn't that authoritiative, but it's just goofy to say that the Sequence isn't suppressed. This responsory is not one of the ones given in the Solesmes gradual and in the OCM for the final commendation. Should it be? Yes, but that's not the question.
The Dies Iræ with the Alleluia is also an abomination: the whole point is that ends on the "Amen" and is not followed by "Alleluia" like the other sequences (whether or not you actually do them the way that they were always done, hence the dang name, or per the rubrics).
@chonak translated the Prætonanda to the OCM a few years ago. I don't see a general permission to use any old proper, even if I don't really care. Shoot, we use the TLM propers regardless, but we do 1, maybe 2 NO sung Masses a year, and I really hope that I never have to do them again as soon as that's allowed again — I do think that this is unique, and I don't recommend it!Thanked by 1novusgordo -
Agree to disagree. The Dies Irae is a towering part of our western liturgical heritage. There is no document that says to stop doing it; that should carry more weight than the misbegotten intentions of Bugnini et al, who, for whatever reason, forgot to explicitly say to stop doing it. Those of us who are actively trying to preserve the penitential character of the Requiem, for which AnimaVocis pines, should have no qualms about exploiting the optionality of the books to do so. The traditional option is to do the traditional text, not the so-called first option given.
As far as the Libera Me goes, the books explicitly state "or another song" can be sung for the Final Commendation. This is not grasping at straws. Singing the responsory which has been sung at roughly this point in the liturgy for hundreds of years is likely the most appropriate "or-another-song" that could possibly be sung.
Agree that singing the alleluia with the Dies Irae is weird, but not as weird as dropping the sequence all together.
Those of us that believe in a hermeneutic of continuity need to fight for our liturgical inheritance
-
Quoth @liampmcdonough:
The propers in the liturgical books don't work that way though. The occasions on which sequences are to be sung are clearly indicated in the Missal; since no sequence is given for the Mass for the Dead, either in the Missal itself or in Ordo cantus Missæ, a sequence may not licitly be sung. The fact that there was a sequence in the usus antiquior doesn't change that fact.The Dies Irae is a towering part of our western liturgical heritage. There is no document that says to stop doing it; that should carry more weight than the misbegotten intentions of Bugnini et al, who, for whatever reason, forgot to explicitly say to stop doing it.
(Obviously, that doesn't apply to the final commendation, where the rubrics explicitly allow the freedom to use other suitable chants. +Bugnini's comments in Notitiæ would seem to preclude the Libera me, but as @MatthewRoth pointed out, those comments have little to no real weight of authority behind them.) -
the change of focus of the Requiem Mass change from praying for the departed soul to God, to all this expectation of heaven and canonization of the departed?
As far as changes in the liturgy itself goes there are a few which spring to mind:
* Readings can be chosen that suggest or can be interpreted to say that the deceased is already in heaven. In particular, a very popular reading (Wisdom 3:1-9) begins: "The souls of the just are in the hand of God and no torment shall touch them." The gospel of the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-12) suggests that the deceased was holy and worthy of heaven; as it does when read on the feast of All Saints. (The reading from Wisdom was also traditionally read on feasts of the saints, not at a Requiem.)
* The proper chants pray for the deceased, but as these are optional other chants and songs can be chosen that never mention prayer for the dead. Other prayers for the dead were changed or omitted: the Agnus Dei was changed from " . . . grant them rest . . grant them eternal rest" to the usual ". . . have mercy on us . . grant us peace," and the final the "Requiescant in pace" was omitted.
* The prayers of final commendation ("Before we go out separate ways . . ") seems to speak of the future meeting in heaven with the deceased as a certainty - "One day we shall joyfully greet him/her again . . . "
* If a eulogy is done (and it is officially allowed in the rubrics), it is rarely put in terms of praying for the deceased.
So a Mass for the Dead (new rite) can be (and often is) said with very little emphasis on praying for the dead. Part of this may be because of customs quite foreign to the traditional understanding of the Requiem liturgy (it's a "Celebration of Life!"), but it's also on account of the official changes and options. -
I think there is a case to be made that sequences not found in the Graduale can be included in the Mass.
The Roman Church never had much time for sequences, but why does that mean the whole rest of the Catholic world has to be in such a hurry to get out of church?
The historic sequences are never heretical (nor are the Kyrie tropes).
The Roman Church preserves the model in the current liturgical books, so the sequence per se is not condemned. (Note that Kyrie tropes are also back in)
With all the fluff that is added to Masses (children’s liturgy of the word songs, etc) why can’t the weight of tradition be on the side of singing a sequence? -
well: I think that there's a bit of a 50-50 on whether another suitable chant covers a proper that the reformers and even Solesmes seemed to suppress. I don't care, but maybe someone else does.
Kyrie tropes per se are not back in. You can't just do anything with form C!
in fact, we got the Justorum animæ at the offertory today in the traditional Mass…it's hardly fit for a funeral. -
I think it would be impermissible to add it as a sequence between the gradual/responsory and alleluia, since the rubrics are clear about when sequences may or must be done, but alius cantus aptus clearly allows for its use elsewhere in the mass.
-
If a eulogy is done (and it is officially allowed in the rubrics), it is rarely put in terms of praying for the deceased.
Eulogies are absolutely not allowed in the rubrics.
According to the GIRM (both Canadian and US):382. At Funeral Masses there should usually be a short Homily, but to the exclusion of a funeral eulogy of any kind.
Eulogies are a liturgical abuse, as is playing secular music, even if it is that “Turn, Turn, Turn” song based on that Ecclesiasticus reading that’s read at pretty much every funeral. The place for eulogies (and secular music) is at the luncheon afterwards or at the wake.
-
@SponsaChristi -Thanks for the correction.
-
There is no Sequence in the 1970 Requiem. I see no warrant for shoehorning a long liturgical action in before the Alleluia, especially THAT action. ("Amen...oh, just kidding about that judgement stuff.")
There is also nothing preventing one from using the Dies Irae as a Communion motet. -
Or as an Offertory motet.
A brief "remembrance" of the faith life of deceased may be given after the post-communion prayer. That said, many pastors seem to have shifted such remarks being offered before the Mass proper has begun. (Basically, priests and/or bereavement committees instruct people that eulogies are suited to visitations and/or collations after Mass/interment, not Mass itself). The boom was lowered against eulogies in Boston in the '90s. -
A brief "remembrance" of the faith life of deceased may be given after the post-communion prayer.
That’s not the same as a eulogy. Given that people don’t understand the difference, even that’s being forbidden by dioceses and moved to either the vigil or the luncheon in the hall. -
Considering the tone and content (and length) of the Dies irae, and the purpose of song in the Novus rite and its funeral liturgy especially at the Offertory and Communion, not to mention the (older) notion of “motet”, I reckon that the Dies irae is not congruus actioni.
-
Right. Hence the precaution of more pastors not allowing remarks within the Mass proper anymore.
I feel bad for saying this, but I actually appreciate the discouragement and not having the pressure and expectation of having to write a eulogy and get up there and eulogize. I have no issues with public speaking, but I hate being expected to do stuff at funerals and the guilt trip that follows from priests and family about “being selfish” by declining to “actively participate” in funerals, especially for something completely unnecessary such as being an EMHC. -
I myself have elevated the issue that permission==>pressure to perform. Too many people feeling forced by the practical existence of permission to get up in front of a congregation to speak in a way that would be much gentler in the context of a visitation or collation. (I think of friends who also got saddled with offering remarks from other family members who did not want to shoulder that burden, but felt compelled to prepare remarks). Awful, awful, awful.
For my late mother in 2014, then my late father in 2017, I told their parish curate and bereavement committee to the following effect "We just mourners who want to pray and have the usual prayers and sacrifice offered for the deceased. We have no wish to bear the burden of offering remarks in addition to that." Which the first time came as something of a surprise to them. Besides my parents outlived almost everyone else they knew other than their adult children (the one grandchild being institutionalized across the country); so there were fewer mourners than parish staff in a church that seats many hundreds of people; offering remarks to a mostly empty space would have been an additional cruelty.
It reminds me - in that pervasive "oh, we never thought of that" mindless way of Catholic parish life (which, according to testimony of my own forbears, also existed well before V2, just dressed up in pieties designed to silence objections) - of preachers who gather children around them and earnestly tell them that God loves them just like their parents love them; preachers who apparently lose any sense of how monstrous the lives of children can be in their own families and homes. -
On the funeral emphasis, the choice of propers (readings and music) and the focus of the preaching is the primary place that things have drifted.
On the sequence question, if I were planning my own funeral I might consider asking for it to be used as meditation/prelude before the liturgy begins, perhaps in English for sake of congregational comprehension.
@MatthewRoth I don't think I am picking up what you are intending with this:
"Kyrie tropes per se are not back in. You can't just do anything with form C!"
-
GIRM The Kyrie, Eleison
52. After the Penitential Act, the Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy), is always begun, unless it has already been part of the Penitential Act. Since it is a chant by which the faithful acclaim the Lord and implore his mercy, it is usually executed by everyone, that is to say, with the people and the choir or cantor taking part in it.
Each acclamation is usually pronounced twice, though it is not to be excluded that it be repeated several times, by reason of the character of the various languages, as well as of the artistry of the music or of other circumstances. When the Kyrie is sung as a part of the Penitential Act, a “trope” precedes each acclamation. -
One will notice that on page 518 of the Roman Missal (US) that the "troped" Kyrie has this instruction:
The Priest, or a Deacon or another minister, then says the following or other invocation with Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy).
Then, the appendix VI, pages 1474-1480 is subtitled "Sample Invocations" with the instruction:
The Priest, or a Deacon or another minister, then may use one of the following invocations with Kyrie, eleison (Lord, have mercy).
I would believe, with the syntax and use of the word "may' in the latter instruction, combined with the title of "sample", indicates that one could indeed use another prepared, or even ad hoc, invocations. As such, it would make far more sense to use a simplified version of the historic tropes.
Just a thought. -
I think that what it is actually saying is use these, or do something similar. It is not saying that you can use the tropes, which have absolutely nothing to do with the form that is in the missal. Sure people do all sorts of nonsense, but the book is right there. No one’s forcing them to do it, and even if you could, those people won’t be convinced anyway.
Also, I agree with Andrew that the Dies Irae is incongruous with the liturgical action. -
Well, if we are going to use these "tropes" (intercessions, really).... Couldn't one base them from the ideas of the historical tropes? (See below)
Full (translated) troped text, Kyrie De Angelis:
Lord, eternal King of lofty power, creator of all, have mercy.
Lord, the entire multitude of the globe praises thee, worthy and merciful, have mercy.
Lord, behold now the people here desiring gifts, have mercy.
Christ, mayest thou now keep us from our ills, founder of the world, have mercy.
Christ, having triumphed over pestilence, taking up these our sins, have mercy.
Christ, who by thy worthy blood savest us from the evil enemy, have mercy.
Lord, make the clergy sing a true hymn of the heart to thee, may they live for aye, borne by the spirit, a brilliant countenance, have mercy.
Lord, now, King of the wretched peoples, behold the prayers, O righteous flower of flowers and fount of good things, cleanse our guilt, have mercy.
Lord, take us up anew, lead the way, we beseech thee from the heart, by which we might have the strength to climb up and live the way, have mercy.
To where it could potentially become the following 3 options:
1
You are eternal King and Creator of all - Lord, Have Mercy.
The entire globe (earth?) praises you, who are worthy and merciful - Christ, Have Mercy.
You behold now the people here gathered, desiring your gifts - Lord, Have Mercy.
2
You are founder of the world, may you now keep us from our ills - Lord, Have Mercy.
You took up our sins, and triumphed over pestilence - Christ, Have Mercy.
By your worthy Blood, save us from the evil enemy - Lord Have Mercy
3
Make the clergy sing a true hymn of the heart to you as you recreate them in the spirit - Lord, Have Mercy.
O Righteous flower of flowers and fount of all good things, cleanse our guilt - Christ, Have Mercy.
Take us up anew and lead our way, so that we may live by your strength and by your statutes - Lord, Have Mercy.
By no means are these the most poetic rendition of these texts, but it's just a though experiment to say that, if someone can make something up, why not also have the option to do something like this, especially when you have clergy that are amenable to it??? -
I once had someone earnestly say to me that under alius cantus aptus (which I jokingly tell my friends should have really been written, ONLIUS cantus (in)aptus...) it is perfectly licit to chant a hymn in place of a proper, but it is NOT licit (so they say) to chant the Palmer Burgess propers because the translations are not "official".t's just a though experiment to say that, if someone can make something up, why not also have the option to do something like this
It seems to me that anything that is firmly rooted in actual tradition, however imperfect it may be, would qualify under alius cantus aptus, even when those things are modern renditions of the old—and it stands to reason that these things would be preferable to eschewing them away all together.
To bring it home in context: if tropes are permitted (which, indeed, they are) then using historic texts as the bases for such tropes seems entirely appropriate (and indeed, preferable) IMHO. Hermeneutic of continuity and all that... -
I mean, yeah. Right now that’s the rule, whether we like it or not. (I don’t really support vernacular chant, and as Meloche has reminded us…be patient.)
Mutatis mutandis, tropes are allowed, but the rubrics are pretty clear in what the expectations are IMHO. -
Indeed the rubric in the missal is clear Invocations naming the gracious works of the Lord may be made, as in the example below,
Nothing to suggest a penitential character! Just one of the flaws in liturgy design by committee. As ICEL suggested in 1988, the troped form should moved, and would better used when the Gloria is not used.
Welcome to the MusicaSacra Forum!
To participate in the discussions on Catholic church music, sign in or register as a forum member, The forum is a project of the Church Music Association of America.
Categories
- All Discussions21,690
- General Music Discussion8,479
- Job Openings273
- Management of Music Programs859
- Choral Matters538
- Church Documents and Rubrics538
- CMAA Notes307
- Events755
- For Newcomers: Read First26
- Sacred Polyphony563
- Hymnody891
- Gregorian Chant: General2,740
- ↳ Graduale Romanum and Liber Usualis372
- ↳ Graduale Simplex60
- ↳ Semiology65
- Vernacular Plainsong702
- Anglican Use and Anglican Chant70
- Organ, Other Instruments and Repertoire448
- New Composition/Works in Progress1,329
- Recordings237
- Music for Hispanic Ministry162
- Music Education: Children216
- Music Education: General222
- News Items245
- Positions Wanted3
- General Discussion: Catholicism741
- Amusements183
- General Discussion1,044
- Opinions119