alius cantus aptus
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Friends,

    Does anybody know the very first time "alius cantus aptus" ("anything else appropriate") was allowed to replace the Mass Propers at High Mass?

    Was it in the very first GIRM ?

    Or was it really Musicam Sacram ?

    This is, of course, a problem that is wider than the present document. Ever since Musicam Sacram (1967), the admission of alius cantus aptus, “the anthrax in the envelope” according to Lazlo Dobszay, any other suitable song in place of the proper chants, has meant in practice the virtual abandonment of the Gregorian propers.


    http://musicasacra.com/sttl/


    The "anthrax in the envelope" was paragraph 32 of the 1967 Instruction. It says: In some places there exists the lawful practice, occasionally confirmed by indult, of substituting other songs for the Introit, Offertory and Communion chants in the Graduate Romanum. At the discretion of the competent territorial authority this practice may be retained, on condition that the songs substituted fit in with those parts of the Mass, the feast, or the liturgical season. The texts of such songs must also have the approval of the same territorial authority. (DOL 4153)


    The General Introduction to the new Missal went a step further by saying that the Proper chant (Introit, Offertory, Communion) may be a piece from the Graduate Komanum or the Simple Gradual, — "vel alius cantus aptus" — or anything else that is appropriate. This sounds rather like the hoary joke about the causa bibendi, the rightful reasons for drinking: dies natalis, infirmitas corporis, adventus hospitis, vel alia causa - a birthday, bodily weakness, arrival of a guest, — or any other reason.


    http://media.musicasacra.com/pdf/dobszay-bugnini.pdf

    Here I am not speaking of exceptions to the rule (such as the oft-cited situation in Germany) but official legislation (for the entire Latin Rite) during the 20th century. Here I am not speaking of Low Masses, but High Masses (as defined by the Council documents).
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Am die erste "Singmesse?" (At the first counter-Reformation German "Singmesse where "popular" chorales were offered with texts to the congregations to sing; a direct response to Lutherian practice?
    Also JMO, wouldn't it be more proper (pun intended) to translate the term correctly. If we say "principium locum" literally means "first place" then "ACA" shouldn't be rendered "anything else appropriate," yes?
  • chonakchonak
    Posts: 9,160
    "another suitable chant (or 'song')" means about the same.

    I don't think the Singmesse was a response to the Reformation: it came later, as a product of the so-called Enlightenment era, in which rationalist princes imposed their will on the Church.
  • melofluentmelofluent
    Posts: 4,160
    Take your word for it. You're in school now, latest info et al, eh what? I undergraded with Grout in 74, post-graded 87 with Grout, who knew?
    But I stand on my point about "ACA," RC. JMO's (how many inititals can I rack up?) aka "anything else appropriate" would leave the screen door open to circus reels (oops, been done in Brazil), Beatle songs like "Hey Jude" (oops, again) and Take Five (I can't imagine!) What's next then, tone poem melodies about planets and arctic Scandinavian landscapes?
    Perish the thought.
  • CharlesW
    Posts: 11,934
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zJ3vqkXqRU
  • awruff
    Posts: 94
    The term "Singmesse" may not go back to the pre-Reformation, but the singing of vernacular hymns alongside or in place of propers certainly does. It was widespread in some places in the seventeenth century, before the Enlightenment, but it increased greatly in the Enlightenment era.

    Sometimes the practice was to sing the vernacular alongside (e.g. after) the Latin chant, other times it was a replacement of it. When the Holy See granted Germany (then including Austria) in 1943 permission for the "Deutsches Hochamt" - "German High Mass" but it really means Latin Mass with some German songs - it said it would be graciously tolerated that the vernacular hymns replace the Latin propers.

    awr
    Thanked by 3Ioannes Andreades melofluent DougS
  • dad29
    Posts: 2,217
    the hoary joke about the causa bibendi


    Or see "In Taberna" text from Carmina Burana.
  • JennyH
    Posts: 106
    Sometimes the practice was to sing the vernacular alongside (e.g. after) the Latin chant, other times it was a replacement of it.

    This has been pretty well documented on NLM as the exception to a general rule, although I have encountered some people who like to make a big deal about this exception. But my understanding is that the priest still read the proper at the altar in such cases.
  • Andris Amolins
    Posts: 152
    Musicam Sacram (1967) simply legalized what was happening anyway long before the liturgical reform. At least in Latvia and Lithuania (perhaps that can be extrapolated to whole Central and Eastern Europe) the Mass propers were sung only in cathedrals and seminaries (and even there I am not sure if that was the case in all sung Masses). The parish Churches simply did not have resources to learn a different set of propers for each Mass. Rossini and Tozer propers were not known. So the parish choirs sung whatever they were able to learn (simple Latin motets or vernacular hymns).

    In the German-speaking countries there is a custom to replace by vernacular hymns also parts of the Kyriale. Gamber wrote that in Germany it was imposed during the so called enlightment age. Ruff wrote that in Austria this phenomenon has pre-reformation origins. At least, in communities served by FSSP it is still the practice whine SSPX is trying to introduce Latin propers. Also in Poland and the Baltic States there are older prayer books that contain vernacular substitutes for the Kyriale.
  • Paul_OnnonhoaratonPaul_Onnonhoaraton
    Posts: 434
    Friends,

    Thank you for your kind responses. I am aware of the exceptions to the rule, which were especially prominent in Germany, since these have been very well documented by Fortescue, Jungmann, NLM, and others. And, yes, my understanding is that the priest still read the propers at the altar (a crucial distinction).

    However, I was speaking here specifically of the official legislation in the 20th century. I was speaking of those documents which were meant for the entire Latin Rite.

    Are we in agreement with the eminent scholar László Dobszay that Musicam Sacram opened the possibility ("In some places there exists the lawful practice, occasionally confirmed by indult"), and the very first GIRM took it a step further?

    When did the very first GIRM appear in America? Was the 1975 version the very first one?

    Can anyone cite any other official documents (AFTER the Second Vatican Council) besides these two which speak of this?
  • DougS
    Posts: 793
    Just for clarification's sake, I think the 1975 version of the GIRM was actually its third edition but the first that appeared in English in the United States. If I remember correctly, "the big book" on post/conciliar liturgical documents, compiled by ICEL, includes text from all earlier versions with corrections noted in parentheses (or similar).

    As to the question at hand: I am in agreement with Dobszay. I have scrutinized "the big book" very thoroughly and do not recall any such universal declaration, but I wasn't looking for one the last time I had the book in my hands, either. (caveat lector!)
  • Paul_D
    Posts: 133
    The elephant in the chatroom here is that, while much legitimate precedence is given for the “alius cantus”, there is no mention of how the tradition informs the question of “aptus”.

    Yes, longstanding Catholic tradition legitimizes the use of hymns in the place of propers, and this practise can legitimately be continued. But can this precedence really be used to legitimize the current free-for-all in hymnody, to the complete exclusion of any sense of propers?

    It is one thing to sing vernacular paraphrases of the Mass ordinary; it is another thing (closely related nonetheless) to sing a small, quasi-canonical set of psalm-based texts or other paraphrases from liturgical sources. However, it is a non-sequitur to use the tradition to conclude that the present unrestricted use of hymns with non-scriptural/liturgical texts in place of the propers is justified in general.

    This is not simply a difference in degree from the tradition; it is a difference in kind, and stands in need of review.
    Thanked by 5irishtenor CHGiffen ryand Gavin E_A_Fulhorst
  • Protasius
    Posts: 468
    I think the "aptus" could have been ment in the way of preserving other propers used by tradition or which were once used. For example some use the old proper chants of the Circumcision for the Solemnity of Mary the Mother of God. Also there are proper chants in various diocesan and monastic traditions which would be a nice chant also aptus; think e.g. of the various ways the Mass for the Dead was sung before Trent limited it to the Requiem mass.
  • smvanroodesmvanroode
    Posts: 966
    This is a good possibility. The current GIRM says "alius cantus congruus", which might be rendered by "another chant with corresponding characteristics", i.e. chants similar to ones mentioned before (Graduale Romanum, Graduale Simplex)
    Thanked by 2chonak CHGiffen
  • SalieriSalieri
    Posts: 3,177
    One thing that seems not to be mentioned in most of these discussions (correct me if I'm wrong) on the current GIRM is found in option (4) for the Entrance chant:

    ... (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similartly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan bishop.
    (GIRM 48, emphasis mine)

    The USCCB has (I believe) ruled that 'chant' and 'song' are the same thing, thus, back to hymns - but how is it that almost everyone forgets that word : liturgical? How on earth can a devotional hymn like "Immaculate Mary" be allowed by the fourth option since it's not liturgical? Even if we were to concede that 'chant' and 'song' are indeed interchangeable we need to limit ourselved to those that truly are, in text and/or music, liturgical - Office Hymns, Psalmody (incl. metrical Psalms), ye olde Sequences and Proses, etc.

    Reigning in the hymns so that they (when used at Mass) fall into these categories will get people to start thinking and praying liturgically, - especially in the riches of the Psalter. From there we can easily move on to the Hymn-tune Introits, then to the Graduale Simplex, then to the Graduale Romanum.

    When the "assembly"'s whole experience of Catholic music/poetry is the likes of "On this day, O Beautiful Mother" (or worse), we can't expect them to cope with the liturgical language (spoken and musical) found in the propers - it would cause shell shock.
  • Andris Amolins
    Posts: 152
    What exactly the Bishops' Conference has to approve then? If the text is from existing liturgical books (often from the Scripture) then it has long ago been approved by Rome and do not need another approval. Or they should approve the music to which the words are set? Or that they are congruous to the Entrance, Communion, or Offertory of the Mass on any particular day? Should an organist every time having downloaded any piece from CPDL convoke (or wait for) a plenary meeting of the Bishops' Conference before it can be sung in his parish? In that case most parishes in the world are in breach of this rule, and it thus appears derogated by a 30+ year contra legem custom.
Add a Comment