How long would it last? Does anyone have the guts? Announcing the Entrance Hymn.
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    Does anyone have the guts to do this?

    Instead of saying, "The opening hymn can be found on page . . ."

    From now on, when announcing the Entrance Hymn, use one of the following:

    1. "Today, we will be replacing the assigned Mass proper with the following hymn . . ."

    2. "Today, we will be replacing the special text assigned by the Church with the following hymn . . ."

    3. "Today, we will be replacing the special music the Church has assigned to this feast with hymn number . . ."
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    I would. Of course I would run it past the pastor first. And I would suggest that it would be better if HE did it instead.

  • canadashcanadash
    Posts: 1,481
    Nope!

    The problem is lack of education. No one has any idea what a proper is. We've been singing them all since September (and even my own rendition prior to that) and the poor faithful just don't understand why. But really, it's not their fault. Someone, fairly educated, and around pre-Vatican II, asked me why we sing the verses. They didn't do that pre-Vatican II according to his older Missal. My mom, European, said they used hymns "back home". Communication and repetition of the communication. We really can't blame the flock at my parish.
    Thanked by 1CHGiffen
  • CHGiffenCHGiffen
    Posts: 4,869
    Sorry. This would be way too cheeky. Effrontery is not the way to go about educating anyone, especially our sisters and brothers in Christ.
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,529
    No, because that turns an incidental invitation into a polemical moment that itself is even less proper to the Mass. It would, however, be a great way to give promoters of propers a reputation for snark, not something I would recommend.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,609
    I use introits as preludes, at times. But I have no desire to replace the entrance hymn - and couldn't even if I wanted. The pastor does not allow announcing any hymns. He says it is in poor taste and is disruptive.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Who'd've thunk it, Jeff Ostrowski, agent provocateur? Jeff, if you've ever seen the great musical 1776, I think you'd agree that your persona, in this instance, aligns with Adams quite aptly. There is nothing that you advocate that isn't noble or correct, but your approach will likely give you pause down the road to conclude you can't persuade because people erringly have pegged you as "obnoxious and disliked." I know this as I lived that life already. And no, you're not regarded as such.
    But the impatience that underlies the challenge "Does anyone have the guts?" (as natural for a young pioneer to utter as anything) evidences a self-defeating axiom that you acknowledge is already in place- that of a renegade who not only would their person and livelihood in jeopardy on principle, or worse and less: semantics, but who would do so independently of consultation with colleagues and superiors, which in our Church seems to suffer as the crux of most problems, locally and globally.
    Zeal and righteousness serve a soul well when it is in concert in relation to the whole Body. And the only way to know if that is the case is through consultaton and collaboration, especially with those sacramentally imbued with pastoral authority, right or wrong they may seem. Failure to account for that will turn zeal into pride in the eyes of some. Oops, we're now on the defensive. And we're also not too far from propelling outselves into a "loyal opposition" defiance not unlike SSPX, the outcome and fruit is still yet to be determined.
    I think we study the methodology (with which you're very familiar and you practice) of old lions like Mahrt, boomer lions like Rice and Treacy, and young ones like Bartlett and Carr-Wilson, Pluth and oh, Ostrowski!
    Honey...vinegar.
    Thanked by 1tomboysuze
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    @Liam: interesting that a mere statement of fact would somehow be construed as a "polemical moment" ...
    Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,397
    Actually the announcement would not only be cheeky (and disruptive and John Adams) but also inaccurate. The worst that one could truly say about the entrance hymn is that it's the fourth best among the choices the Church offers.
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • 48. (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.
    - GIRM 2011

    Are hymns a fourth option? I know OCP's Today's Liturgy thinks that hymns/songs are chants.
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    http://www.adoremus.org/1107MassSongs.html

    http://www.chantcafe.com/2011/07/notitae-responses-database.html

    What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something”, no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing during Mass. (Original emphasis.)
    -1969 response to an inquiry by the Consilium (group of bishops and experts set up by Pope Paul VI to implement the Constitution on the Liturgy)
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,529
    JennyH: Of course facts can part of a polemical statement, depending on how they are wielded.

    Jeffrey: http://www.ccwatershed.org/media/pdfs/12/03/05/11-06-24_0.pdf
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,397
    Ok, but is this response legislation? If so, is it current? If so, does it exceed the authority of the GIRM?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,529
    You are more than welcome to hire your own canonists to fight that battle, but be prepared for it to be a waste of money (and, if by chance you win, it will turn out to be a two-edged sword). But trying to proof-text the GIRM to find a magical silver bullet to kill hymnody as alius aptus cantus is a fool's errand.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,397
    Liam, whom are you addressing?
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,529
    Kathy

    I thought your question was in response to my reply. If not, hit the Ignore button.
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 348
    I don't know how flexible GIRM is on this, but our Anglo-Catholic parish manages to have the propers and four hymns: the clergy and servers come in from the sacristy and do the Asperges (without the traditional chant or prayers) during the opening hymn, and the sacred ministers stop at the back (narthex). As the introit chant begins, they return to the sanctuary and cense the altar. The offertory chant, anthem/motet, and hymn cover all the many tasks needed to get us to the Orate fratres and Sursum corda. Communion music consists of the choral or congregational Agnus Dei, motet, Communion chant, and hymn. The closing hymn is sung as the altar party depart to the narthex. The timing all works out, especially with our wonderful organist, who can be relied on to sense whether improvisation will be needed (or not) to make everything work.
    Thanked by 2canadash CHGiffen
  • Announcing hymns? They still do that? In my parish, we installed digital hymn number boards. They don't flash or display words, just numbers. These and similar devices have been used throughout central Europe for fifty years. The hymn number lights up just before Mass, the sanctuary bell is rung, and the processional starts without a word of comment.
    Thanked by 2veromary Jenny
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    Yes, in some places they still announce hymns.
  • rich_enough
    Posts: 912
    I keep forgetting that the propers are no more proper than the non-propers....
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,397
    No, Liam, I was asking JennyH about the response of the Concilium.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    Right, we shouldn't be so blunt, it might offend someone.

    After all, being inoffensive and conciliatory has worked SO well in keeping bad music out of the Mass for the last 40 years.

    Thanked by 1Ruth Lapeyre
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,529
    Bluntness is no more virtuous than being inoffensive; both can be ego-serving actions under the guise of Doing Right. Both are more about seeming than serving.
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,397
    Offensive and conciliatory aren't the only two items on the menu. The CMAA has made huge strides, mostly by networking and positive musical action. It's not all about condemning the dodoheads. It's about clearly manifesting a better way.

    I know I've told this story on this forum before, but it bears repeating. I was outside the church during Mass at one of the Chicago Colloquia, because I was coughing, and there was a maintenance man, a Catholic, who had to go outside because his walkie talkie was going off. He raved about the music we were singing, the chant and polyphony, and talked about how pitiful his parish's music was by comparison. I was really happy to hear this from him, a working man.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Do you think Frescobaldi announced, "I'm going to replace the propers with my organ music today?"
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    Ditto in Chicago, Kathy, for my experience. I drove Susan Treacy to the Rite Aid so she could replace her broken reading glasses. While waiting I noticed an elderly woman who'd attended a colloquium Mass just completed and greeted her. She was effusive, tho' her English was halting, with her appreciation of what she'd encountered.
    Imagine what would happen just here in the states if our celebrants would "get it" about the meaning and effect of Mahrt's so-called "paradigm?" And that they're, by and large, not listening to the clarion call for this from B16, is truly tragic.
    OTOH, congrats to you, K, on your newest matriculation!
  • ScottKChicago
    Posts: 348
    Had to be CVS/pharmacy or Walgreens, Charles...no Rite Aid here. Just saying. :)
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    CVS! Yeah, dat's it, Scott, Mawgan Feh-child.
    And Susan did find some glasses, and I din't purchase any vino dere.
  • GavinGavin
    Posts: 2,799
    Although I agree with those who have called to task the invective of the original post, I think there's some great wisdom in it.

    WHAT IF we looked at every hymn, every motet, every simplified chant, every voluntary as "we are replacing the Church's specific music with this"? When I plan music for an RC Mass, this is precisely what I tell myself. It gives me a sense that I am undertaking an awful (in the sense of filled with awe) task, and my wrong move can do violence to the Liturgy. I act with caution.

    Don't do the proposed announcements. But perhaps next time you plan, write out "Introit: Ad te levavi. Hymn to replace Ad te levavi: _____" It's a humbling experience to know you're attempting to replace such a venerable chant.
  • WendiWendi
    Posts: 638
    So basically we should just deal with franken-Mass until everyone is "ready" for the propers again?

    How long will that take?

    How would you go about educating a congregation that has NO interest in being educated, and are in fact openly hostile to any efforts to reintroduce the chanted Propers? There are large numbers of people who will never agree that Chanted propers are the better way.

    Now, before someone jumps all over me for being sarcastic...I'm asking a serious question. Our DM introduced the Communion and Offertory propers at ONE Mass out of three.

    A number of people are vocally upset and a few are actually angry that we aren't singing "traditional songs", such as...Be Not Afraid, On Eagles Wings and Yahweh I know you are Near. A number of people have complained loudly and repeatedly to the DM, the pastor, and choir members (I'm a choir member).

    Anyone involved with the music has had to hear about "too much Latin" "too much of that chant crap", "why can't we sing the hymns we used to sing?" I personally have heard all three, and I'm just a choir member, so I can only IMAGINE what the pastor and the DM are hearing.

    It's not like this happened overnight either. The current DM has been working for over 5 YEARS to re-introduce sacred music etc...to the congregation. He's all about baby-steps, transitioning slowly and educating.

    He had the support of the previous pastor and he has the support of the current pastor.

    And yet...He's been fought every step of the way, and I don't see it getting better, I actually think that the congregation is becoming more polarized between those that appreciate what is happening and those that don't.

    I DO recognize that being rude is not going to help. And despite the frustration that spilled out into my earlier posts I'm not condemning anyone, nor do I think that anyone who doesn't want the Propers is somehow less intelligent than myself.

    The reality is that some people will never agree with or accept the concept that the music used during the Mass is not about an emotional reaction, or making them feel good or uplifted.

    So... could someone please suggest the middle way, that will put the sense of the sacred back into sacred music at Mass in a reasonable amount of time, (I don't think waiting another 40 years is reasonable) without alienating or driving away that group of people who are faithful Catholics, but with that different perspective. AND without giving the pastor and the DM ulcers.


    Thanked by 1Chris Allen
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    DougS, I believe that legislation was subsequently put in place to prevent what Frescobaldi and other organists and directors sometimes did, and the legislation had somewhat limited success. In France, in particular, I think they continued to replace sung texts with organ music. I would suggest that what was done is one question. Whether this is the ideal is a completely differently question, I would suggest.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    And, now, legislation explicitly *allows* the substitution of the proper. Whether one thinks this is "right" or not, I would suggest, is a completely different question. It hardly seems worth shaming people implicitly for following the rules in a less than ideal fashion.

    On a side note, JMO: do you have any evidence of the legislation against Frescobaldi's practice of substituting organ music for the propers?
    Thanked by 1Gavin
  • Liam
    Posts: 4,529
    You offer periodic forums to discuss this (with and informational and educational component, and a Q&A component - and, in the Q&A, you really need to cultivate genuinely curious listening; the worst thing one can do is go into such a meeting envisioning oneself as the Dispenser of Wisdom and the faithful as the docile receptacles for one's wisdom, because that virtually guarantees they will be anything but docile or receptive). And you can't conscript the faithful into attending.

    The Mass, the one event for which one can - ostensibly - conscript the faithful, is not the place for that, and people bitterly resent doing anything other than that for which they *have* been conscripted. The Catholic faithful, having no vote over who is their pastor, and no binding say in anything else in the parish, have mostly passive means to express themselves in parish decision-making: by withholding their presence, treasure and/or approval. That's built into the governance system, and all ministers have to face the reality of it (those who choose not to face it get what's coming to them).

    If you are curious how this works now versus before Vatican II: well, under canon law before 1983, people had a preceptual obligation to support their territorial or personal parish - since 1983, they do not. So, when they are unhappy, they can take their presence, treasure and approval with them. This has helped created communities that intentionally cluster around more ideal liturgical practices; but, by the same token, it makes it harder to spread it elsewhere by any method other than by seduction and patient persuasion. Roman swords were (in)famously double-edged and cut both ways, and that is the case here. Pastors can, of course, try to implement it by force (that's a more American and northern European than Roman approach); but shotgun marriages are a risky proposition - and pastors come and go.

    As I've noted before, it's frustrating to people born into the legal tradition of the Anglosphere to see a system of laws, norms and rules that seems not to be strongly correlated to reality on the ground; however, that is a perfectly normal situation to someone immersed in the culture of Romanita, and the Romans instinctively resist trying to force a greater correlation too often. It's a multicultural world being a Roman Catholic in the Anglosphere.

  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    You know, I offered this conversation in a light tone to generate conversation, and I've been very grateful to read all these comments.

    However, I think I need to be clear that I am fully aware that the 4th option is completely licit in the Ordinary Form. I hope my past writings have made this clear, just as I have clearly stated that I often replace the Propers with hymns out of pastoral necessity.

    That being said, there is no question that we are, indeed, replacing the Proper when we use "anything else appropriate" (alius cantus aptus). Countless serious liturgists have driven this point home much better than I ever could. I admit that if one reads the G.I.R.M. in a kind of "vacuum," this might not be 100% clear. However, as the USCCB Secretariat has stressed, the G.I.R.M. is not to be read in this manner.

    Thanks again for all the comments and perspectives! I always learn so much here.
  • TCJ
    Posts: 802
    Wendi said...

    "I personally have heard all three, and I'm just a choir member, so I can only IMAGINE what the pastor and the DM are hearing."


    I obviously can't speak for others, but in my experience, if you, as a choir member, have heard all that, you likely have heard more than either the pastor or the DM. In the four churches I've worked for, I've found that people will loudly complain to those who have no say over what goes on, but often the pastor isn't told at all and neither am I, unless it's second or third-hand information.
    Thanked by 2Wendi Ruth Lapeyre
  • Richard MixRichard Mix
    Posts: 2,497
    Jeffrey Coggins alludes to the Liedanzeiger; the de:WP article only shows the rotary dial model on older versions of the page. The chief advantage of these machines is that the verse number as well as the hymn can be dialed up on the fly, allowing the organist to signal skipping if time has to be made up.
  • Charles in CenCA
    Posts: 2,416
    One of the greatest difficulties with forensically sorting out issues arbitrated by the GIRM, JMO et al, is that we inevitably have to talk in abstracts. If we get bogged down to specifics such as "Well, my DM said that Tom Kendzia's "I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS" is not an allusion or fourth option." And another responds "Your DM's poorly informed, it is not a verbatim setting of the antiphon such as provided us by the (brothers!) Ford, Adam Bartlett, Mr.Rice or Frs. Kelly and Weber, so there!" And someone else chimes in "Well, sorry to rain on yor parade, but those vernacular translations still don't make them viable as the first option, niener niener, niener." Wah wah wah waah.
    So one comes to a better understanding of the sentiments of Mssrs. Schaefer, Mahrt and a host of others: back to the Latin/Vatican publisher future with MR, GM, LU, etc.!
  • RagueneauRagueneau
    Posts: 2,592
    DougS,

    And then, too, some things are just plain inscrutable. For instance: why Dr. Peter Wagner spent so much time around 1910 writing complex organ harmonizations (50 pages!!!) for the Good Friday chants.
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Great anecdote, JMO!
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    Kathy said: Actually the announcement would not only be cheeky (and disruptive and John Adams) but also inaccurate. The worst that one could truly say about the entrance hymn is that it's the fourth best among the choices the Church offers.


    Actually, your statement is inaccurate, Kathy. Vatican Council II said "Gregorian chant is to be given first place" in the Roman Rite (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium). We are allowed to replace the Introit, but the desire of the Council is that chant be sung, whenever possible.
  • ossian1898ossian1898
    Posts: 142
    I have often been tempted to announce "In place of the Introit we will be singing..."
  • Kathy
    Posts: 5,397
    JennyH,

    The wishes of the Council are, for us, legislated by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal.
    Thanked by 3Gavin CharlesW marajoy
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,609
    Kathy, you are correct. I am always amazed that whatever the issue, someone will say, "Well, Pope St. Whirligig the Great said, in document XYZ in 1545..." The bishops are the legitimate authority for us, and the Vatican has given them that authority.
  • Sounds like more liturgy police on the way.

    If it were such a problem, why isn't there enforcement from the Vatican, and Bishops. As one of the posters in another thread mentioned a response, I believe from the USCCB, regarding another "liturgy police issue": ahhh stop being a legalist.

  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,609
    I don't think anyone wants to be a legalist. However, there are those who have a vision of liturgy, regardless of what legitimate authority says, who insist it be their way and no other. The Church is nowhere near as legalistic as these annointed folks. The Church actually has some authority. They have none.
    Thanked by 2CHGiffen Gavin
  • Agreed, though, there are those that have to pull out the "Code", the "Law" as they see it, to enforce there visions of liturgy.

    I am sure Jesus and the Apostles are looking down and having a grand ole laugh, as they see us all bickering about "our" visions of liturgy. :O)
  • (I'm sitting here waiting for the arrival of the liturgy police because of my David Haas selection of, "Jesus, Come to Us" for last Sunday.) yay lol
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    I am a historian, so interpreting evidence, especially written documents, is "what I do." As such, I like to think of history like a a court case: there are all these pieces of evidence, and it's my job as the historian/lawyer to tell the story of "what happened," or how these pieces of evidence came to be the way they are now. I think of letters, diaries, and other things as my bloody knife, footprints, fingerprints, bullet shell casings, etc.

    The legalists would make terrible lawyers and historians because they would tell the jury, "Look at this knife! Just look at it!"

    As a juror I would say, "Ok, I'm looking at it. Now what?" And this is how I frequently feel on this board when someone pulls out a Whirligig the Great text.

    Shoving evidence in someone's face means nothing if it can't be interpreted within the framework of a larger plausible narrative. Even our most "legalistic" Supreme Court justices recognize this fact.
    Thanked by 3CharlesW Gavin CHGiffen
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,609
    MichaelM, I had to get on YouTube to hear what the Haas piece sounded like. I had never heard it. I don't get out much. LOL.