We should never forget that despite the best of intentions, CMAA is tiny when compared to NPM. We are a minor player, and our influence is not as great as we sometimes think. But we try, and that's the important thing to remember. Bringing those bishops on board with what we are trying to accomplish is essential to our success. Like it or not, they do have authority over liturgy in the United States. The current bishops are on average, better than what we had to work with twenty years ago.

Dear old Pope St. Whirligig may have been a splendid fellow, but he's no longer relevant. It's difficult to get across to some who delight in quoting old documents on Church music, that most clergy and laity don't really give a mouse's behind what some ancient pope or musician thought at another time and place. Relevance is the key. If what we do is not relevant to the culture and the situations in which we work, there will be little success for us.

Trying to impose older liturgical practices on today's congregations simply will not work. We are working from the assumption that because we find the older liturgy superior, and the music sits better on our ears, others will see it the same. They don't. The mass itself has been revised. We could argue for years as to whether or not it is the same or a different mass. However, it has been revised enough that some parts of the older mass simply will not fit into it, nor should they.

As to our role in improving sacred music, it has seemed to me that we could easily isolate ourselves into a pre-conciliar corner and become totally irrelevant. I hope we don't do that, if for no other reason than it will not change much in the average parish. With our congregation, we have identified the things that can change and be improved. There are also those things which can not change, and some items are simply gone forever and will not be restored to the liturgy.

The ICEL chant mass has been a success. The Latin chant mass works well for us during Lent and Advent. Communion antiphons were easy to restore and now the congregation notices and comments if they are not sung. Graduals are gone forever. I wouldn't even try to impose them on a mass structure where they simply don't fit or belong anymore. We can use introits, but only as preludes, not as replacements for the entrance hymn. As you can see we don't have everything desirable, but have worked with what we could realistically implement and achieve.

These are opinions, nothing more, and reflect a legalistic view of liturgy. I find that I have to make a case for sacred music at least weekly to someone. Were I to go with the Gather top 40, I might not be challenged as often. Eighty years ago, what you are proposing would not have been questioned because it operated from a base of commonly held assumptions. Those assumptions are no longer widely held and have been replaced with individual preference, and I think, individual confusion. I may not like that, but it is the way it is. Next time I am challenged, I think I will say, "But E.A. Fulhorst says..." How far do you think that will get me?

Musicians should not try to play lawyers explaining the regulations, as it were; it's a lose-lose proposition. (Because, btw, in our culture, that puts the listeners in the role of clients who get to choose which regulations to obey and which ones to ignore - in our culture, it's the clients who decide, not the lawyers (and the clients live with the results of their choices) and the clients just think you are condescending to them.) You can explain vision, but strain to avoid the energy/tone of an ideologue, because that energy/tone will tend to alienate a good chunk of the listening audience (a truism that applies across the spectrum of ideology).

Though the Gradual DOES shave a few minutes off the liturgy.... I used it once, from Chants Abreges, and it actually flowed quite nicely. It provided a good break between long readings (it was Pentecost), and made the Liturgy of the Word seem like less of a chore.

Personally, I think the Reform did away with the Gradual justly, so I too have no desire to see the R. Psalm go anywhere. HOWEVER, I think it'd make a good choice for summer Masses. Do that, and replace the "closing hymn" with a postlude, and you've just significantly cut down on the time of Mass. Not that it should be a concern, but if it is... I think it'd make a lot of PiPs happy.

Thank you ClemensRomanus for your effort to help the OF congregation to experience the authentic liturgical music which cannot be forgotten even in OF Masses. Your effort count more than anything.

I could use the gradual, but not in the place where it was originally. That doesn't mean, of course, that it couldn't be sung elsewhere. I do get the sense that the gradual was intended to be gone and replaced with the Responsorial Psalm.

Although not a fan of the EF mass, I do envy the old days when everything wasn't up for grabs. It must have been nice to go into the organ loft and never have to think about what would come next. I do, however, think the GIRM is a good step in the right direction.

I have the most problem with folks who want to follow the "law," but mean the law of their own choosing or that suits their views. By this I mean, some do want to restore the liturgy. The liturgy they want to restore, however, is not the NO, but the EF. Many have never forgiven the "law," in this case, Paul VI, for creating the NO and are intent on trying to turn it back into the EF. The EF seriously needed reforming, and the Council realized it. Granted, the reforms were poorly managed and implemented, but reforms were needed.

As to dear Whiligig, yes he could make liturgical law, but he had no authority to bind his successors in matters liturgical. If a future pope, as happened, gives authority over the liturgy to the bishops of a country, then Whirligig's edicts are no longer binding.

Yes, we need to make a case for restoring the sacred to the liturgy. That case can not be made by document chucking and anathema hurling.

I agree the Graduals are beautiful. But they are like the sequences of old. They were also beautiful, but no longer a part of the revised liturgy. I wouldn't criticize anyone for using Graduals, but no one is required to use them.

However there is a difference to the Propers and the Sequences. The Propers are the texts of the Mass.

Charles,

if I'm not mistaken, aren't the graduals still part of the OF? The sequences were specifically abrogated, and consequently not included in the current liturgical books (ie, the 1974 Graduale Romanum).

However, the graduals are in there, and also mentioned in the GIRM as licit. I'm not following how they are like the "sequences of old".

I think he's not talking about the 4 sequences in the current GR. I think he's referring to the other sequences beyond those that were suppressed by Trent.

The Sequences are poems added into the propers, specifically after the Alleluia (at the jubilus), starting perhaps as early as the 8th century but more likely the 9th. The propers themselves, especially the Gradual are from the Psalms so they are Biblical. Some of the texts are from the New Testament, but the vast majority of the texts of the Propers are from the Psalms.

Just as the Council of Trent purged the Mass of hundreds of Prefaces (some very local and specific to the locality), it also removed all but 5 of the Sequences. Those that were left, I assume, were considered to be the most beautiful and worthy. The texts of the Graduals have been a part of the Mass as early perhaps as the 2nd century, at least in the case of the Haec Dies. The texts of the Propers were not removed at Vatican II, they were rearranged and expanded because of the 3 year cycle, but never removed.

I must say I am truly impressed that there would be little old ladies hurling anathemas because the choir isn't singing the Graduals. My experience is that only a very few musical members of the Congregation would even know what a Gradual is much less want to chuck a Papal Bull at anyone for not singing them.

However, the graduals are in there, and also mentioned in the GIRM as licit. I'm not following how they are like the "sequences of old".

They were not supressed by a Council, that is true. For any practical purpose, they have been replaced by the Responsorial Psalm.

I use Richard Rice's excellent propers where I can. The communion proper is always sung, the introit is sometimes sung, and the offertory never used. Granted, if I can find a hymn or anthem that comes pretty close to the offertory text, then that works. The choir sings propers at the Sunday choir mass. The cantors seem to have no problems with singing them at the other masses. All in all, somehow it works.

The EF is historically interesting, but not particularly relevant to the OF.

When there is a broken sense of worship in the OF, and when the Holy Father talks again and again about "hermeneutic of continuity" and "reform of the reform" the EF, and the principles of worship elucidated over centuries, is of course relevant.

How is this possibly untrue?

"When there is a broken sense of worship in the OF, and when the Holy Father talks again and again about "hermeneutic of continuity" and "reform of the reform" the EF, and the principles of worship elucidated over centuries, is of course relevant.

How is this possibly untrue? "

It isn't necessarily untrue, but I think we are interpreting it differently. I don't want to put words into your mouth, but I sense the "reform of the reform" means to you the bringing back of the 1962 missal. It doesn't mean that to me. Yes, there are parts of the Tridentine mass that still exist in the NO, chiefly the Ordinary. The canon could be the same, and is at my parish. But that's not true in many places, since others are used. There are other differences, which we all know. The NO is not the same as the EF.

The current optional sequences are Lauda Sion, Stabat Mater and Dies Irae. They are retained in current liturgical books (the Dies Irae is not specifically included in the Order of Christian Funerals but is included in one of the other approved chant books, IIRC) and may be used in their proper place as sequences. Aside from the Dominican (or perhaps some other conventual rites and uses) Rite, however, the sequences that were suppressed at Trent may not be used, so far as I am aware, as sequences properly speaking (in the OF, I suppose they might be alius aptus cantus at another point in the liturgy).

Doug I thought E A Fulhorst began this discussion with the point about the pastor or bishop who may not be interested in making decisions about the musical liturgy or not having the time to, often defers to his director of music, i.e. the power behind the "throne". I don't think that is a minor point at all. So, no matter how minor you or I or anyone else may think the topic, nothing about the musical liturgy of the Mass is minor.

"Arguing finer points of liturgy, even if completely inappropriate for angry ladies with pointing fingers --- which is not necessarily true --- must be fair game on this forum."

Now what I try to do with the seminarians I teach is to show them that when they become pastors they will be in charge and should know and care why the liturgy is important or as so well said by E A Fulhorst

"If we are really going to participate in the grand mission of the Reform of the Reform, we must be bathed in the hermeneutic of continuity. It follows that
3. Becoming knowledgeable about even Pope St. Whirligig the Great is essential if our liturgical say is going to mean anything. Finally and therefore,
4. We shouldn't visibly roll our eyes at scolding nags. Maybe the scolding nag has something new to say. Even better, maybe he has something true to say."

The vast majority of these young men very much want to be involved in the "grand mission".

Doug I would agree that the sequence is part of the Proper but an addition to the Alleluia Propers that were already in place by the 8th century. My minor point has been that the Gradual and the Alleluia, indeed all of the sung propers are biblical, while the Sequences were poems written at the time. I was under the impression that the Sequences were not seen by the Council of Trent as being on the same level as the Proper texts of the Mass, am I wrong? I am not familiar with Sequences other than the ones we still have in the Mass, but if you know where I can find a recording of any that may have been reconstructed I would really be interested. Just got my copy of Decadent Enchantments in the mail.

That's a great question, Ruth, and I don't really know the answer. It's not something I've done much research on, but maybe I should!

I suspect - rather, know - that the EF is better celebrated today than when I witnessed it up to the age of 15 or 16.

Exactly! So we, today, have the opportunity that our forefathers didn't. Vatican II could be implemented today better than it ever could have been if there hadn't been a rupture.

(Funny thing that the terrible implementation of Vatican II could eventually if indirectly lead to the best possible implementation of Vatican II, but that's the way God works with grave evil --- it always leads to an even greater good.)

The EF is not superior in and of itself. It's just in practice superior. Where it's rare today to see a poorly celebrated EF, it's just as rare if not rarer to see a well-celebrated NO. This might be hyperbole, and I do not mean to denigrate the efforts of faithful Catholic liturgists unenamored with the self-worship of the 1970s, but this is certainly broadly true. Thanks to the efforts of certain members on the board and others elsewhere, and definitely thanks to the new translation of the Missal, we are on a different, better trajectory than we were years ago.

I would humbly propose these points:

1. St. Whirligig may be not be invoked for the sake of law; he must be invoked when discussing sacred principles. This is important because

2. Re-engaging these principles will help us implement the Novus Ordo well and widely, better than it ever could have been. Also,

3. That these principles are still valid must be assumed if we would read Vatican II with a hermeneutic of continuity, as the Holy Father wants.

What is true/good/beautiful may never change, but the culture and the context do change. If the context changes enough, then the definitions of true/good/beautiful are no longer understood or relevant.

There is a divide on this forum between those who hold the EF as an ideal, and those of us who are glad the Council and Paul VI made needed changes to the liturgy. That doesn't mean anything goes. It means taking the current missal and rubrics and implementing them as faithfully as possible. I don't look to the EF for guidance. It was the product of another time and place. Granted, some parts of the EF continue into the current missal. Others don't, and probably shouldn't.

In practice, and I am old enough to remember, beginning with the missal of 1965 the canon was in Latin and the rest of the mass vernacular in my parish. Of course, there was only one canon at that time. I don't recall the canon variety and disappearance of the Latin canon until 1970 or so, locally. Although I use settings of the Latin Ordinary during Advent and Lent, my parish is stricly English the rest of the liturgical year. I am fine with that, as is the majority of our congregations. The exceptions being a mass in Spanish once per week, and the Latin EF on Sunday afternoons.

I think it is clear that few developments after the Council actually happened as intended. However, they are what they are, and I have to live with them. And, I would add, make the most of them. Well, we could call the 1st Council of Ruth and Charles and set things right. ;-) I don't think it would be considered ecumenical.

I often say that fixing things will take another 40 to 50 years, if the will is there. Pope Benedict - I believe God's gift to the Church in our time - is not a young man. Who knows whether or not his successor will find any of this a priority? I would agree that the changes you have found positive are also changes I agree with.