The GIRM does say "...or the choir" I believe. So one may use personal judgment, although the preference is towards congregational song. As for Marian music, again that's a judgment. I myself won't use it except after Mass. Otherwise you're replacing the propers, often texts praising God, with Marian music - not "aptus" if you ask me. But again, it's an individual call. I think you can do better than "Ave Maria" for "Alius cantus aptus".

Ave Maria is appointed as a proper one of the Sundays of Advent, so the notion that a Marian text is inherently inappropriate except on a Marian feast is patently bosh.
And while it is a judgement call, I see nothing wrong with asking the Mother of God to pray for us at the hour of our death at a funeral, on All Souls, or any of a number of other occasions.
Recessionals, (not an official part of the Mass,) can rightly be used to point toward a universal feast, or parish celebration or devotion that is coming up, IMO.

GIRM:

61. After the first reading comes the responsorial Psalm, which is an integral part of the Liturgy of the Word and holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.

The responsorial Psalm should correspond to each reading and should, as a rule, be taken from the Lectionary.

It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people's response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place.

"Does anyone know of any documents that justify the use of a communion meditation? "
Sorry, no. The GIRM does allow for a song of thanksgiving (can't find the reference just now) after communion sung by all.

86... if, however, there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant should be ended in a timely manner.

http://www.usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect3b

(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)

We have hashed through this locally a few times. It was a common practice in this diocese for a long time for the choir to sing a meditation song or for the organist to play after communion. The GIRM clearly says that a song "may be sung by all". It therefore MUST be congregational in nature if you are to sing a song of thanksgiving.

One way to get around this: If you are singing a communion hymn, it IS appropriate to use a "choral interlude". If the song uses a refrain, alternate between the song's verses sung by the cantor and another choral piece - a choral piece in a similar key and time signature of course, so that it "flows".

We have done this with great success.

My question still remains: how do you incorporate silence into the Mass? Inasmuch as I realize that this is about the Communion meditation, I am curious as to whether or not those of you who are involved in music make any allowances for sacred silence. Yes, I realize that the communion meditation may be sung by all, but, what about have a period of sacred silence after Communion?

Inasmuch as I enjoy snging solid and beautiful sacred music, there are times when silence is needed. I believe that we have lost our appreciation for having quiet time with our Lord. Its as though we have to have something fill in the gaps, whether it's the organ playing or someone singing.

Sadly we have a priest who "fills in" the silence as he washes the dishes post communion. Yeah, I know. He's purifying the vessels that moments before held the precious Body and Blood. But when he uses the time to crack jokes and entertain the audience, I think it's just washing the dishes. All rather sad. I guess he's more frightened of the silence than anybody else.

We don't get much in the way of silence in our Masses. . . any gaps of "silence" are filled by the keening of babies or the banging of toy trucks on the pews by toddlers.

My all-time favorite is the inattentive parent who permits their child to climb on the kneelers whilst pulling themselves about along the backs of the pews. . . .

"BANG!" . . . (wait for it . . . one . . . two . . . three, cue)

"OOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!" (two . . . three, while they tank up the lungs . . . )

"AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!"

The aria of a wailing child sounds so much better when accompanied by the mushy, droning moo of the organ.

(Sorry, it's my day off, and I'm in a humorous if not a bit vinegary mood.)

"Silence is Golden. Duck-tape is Silver"

All kidding aside, there is a distinct difference in the silence of the Old Mass that we are trying to recapture in the New. Our silence was while the Priest was actively praying the Mass, and we were to meditate by following along in English, or at the very least praying. There was action, and our "participation" was in being a part of the Sacrifice of the Mass - without any particular words or actions for us to do. I believe that it was healthy, especially if our minds were engaged.

I believe that silence for the sake of silence is not all that healthy. It is a poor substitute for the former. Everyone, including the Priest is supposed to meditate - on what? And especially between the Readings - why? The authors of the Lectionary, including the non-Gradual Psalms and non-Alleluia acclamations, tried their best to weave Biblical themes throughout the Liturgy of the Word. The Readings and the responses between are the threads that tie it all together, often even starting with the Opening Prayer. Why, oh why, would one want to snip the thread that holds this cloth together with little "pregnant pauses"? There is a rhythm to the ebb and flow of the Mass - as it is written. Any pauses are not a part of that flow, by definition or very nature!

No. If you want a Mass that keeps you physically active, no matter what you're saying or doing, then go to a modern Mass without all these artificial pauses.

If you want "silence", then go to a Traditional "Low" Mass, and meditate, follow along with you whole mind and heart consuming a meaningful silence.

I must say, Steve, I often wonder what exactly makes "sacred silence" sacred?

At the Cathedral, we would have the Ave Maria sung as the Post-Communion meditation. However, it has become a production number, of late, as the brides see this as an opportunity to lay their flowers in front of the statue of Our Lady. Cameras and video recorders capture the moment for all posterity and it can be quite dramatic, almost like a Spanish telenovela. Even the Quinceneras have now adopted this practice.

Now, I thought that the post-Communion meditation had to be Eucharistic-centered (not that I have anything against using the Ave Maria).

Regarding sacred silence, I believe it to mean our time, sans noise, with God. It is hard for God to have a word in edgewise if we are either talking, singing or have music playing. I refer to this struggle as the Mary/Martha syndrome. Mary was busy doing the cooking, the cleaning and the preparing, while Mary just sat in silence at the feet of Jesus. Both of these are important. We should pray and sing, but, we need to also be quiet in the presence of God.

brandileigh: "document that justifies the psalm being chanted by the choir instead of a cantor from the ambo"

1967-mar-05 Musicam Sacram
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_instr_19670305_musicam-sacram_en.html

# 15
"The faithful fulfil their liturgical role by making that full, conscious and active participation ... Should be above all internal ... Must be, on the other hand, external also ... The faithful should also be taught to unite themselves interiorly to what the ministers or choir sing, so that by listening to them they may raise their minds to God."
# 16
"One cannot find anything more religious and more joyful in sacred celebrations than a whole congregation expressing its faith and devotion ... and also antiphons and psalms, refrains or repeated responses, ... (c) Some of the people's song, however, especially if the faithful have not yet been sufficiently instructed, or if musical settings for several voices are used, can be handed over to the choir alone, provided that the people are not excluded from those parts that concern them. But the usage of entrusting to the choir alone the entire singing of the whole Proper and of the whole Ordinary, to the complete exclusion of the people's participation in the singing, is to be deprecated."

2000 GIRM in English with USA adaptations

# 61
"... It is preferable that the responsorial Psalm be sung, at least as far as the people’s response is concerned. Hence, the psalmist, or the cantor of the Psalm, sings the verses of the Psalm from the ambo or another suitable place. ... In the dioceses of the United States of America, the following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm."

Especially since the USA is permitted more options, perhaps your case is among those mentioned.

Traditionally, the Ave Maria may be sung at the Offertory/Preparation of the Gifts. This is its place in Masses of the BVM in the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex.

In the Graduale Simplex, the Magnificat is a "default" communion canticle (see GS 21). So it would also be appropriate for a post-communion song of praise.

Blessings,
Paul

I'd avoid using the Ave Maria at any time other than when it's appointed.

In many places, it seems to be a traditional (or at least, a common) practice to have a soloist sing a setting of the Ave Maria after communion, especially during the month of May.

one should choose music for communion that which best serves the needs of the parish they serve.

This.

For almost everything, really.

(And why there are so many options in the first place).

Not to get too sidetracked, but am I the only one who doesn't really consider the Magnificat to be a Marian piece at all?

Oh, it certainly has Marian associations, being spoken by Mary and all. I just mean that I don't consider it a Marian piece (meaning, praising or beseeching Mary) any more than Adoro te is a piece about Thomas Aquinas.

It is a particularly excellent text for communion, regardless, though.

Several times over the years, I have sat and listened to a post-communion meditation piece sung by the choir or entirely by a soloist while the choir and congregation listened.

I know the GIRM states in #88 that "when the distribution of Communion is over...if desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation."

I've seen all the different interpretations of the GIRM on this issue

Perhaps the idea of having "different interpretations of the GIRM" might help explain how the practice of a choir or solo piece after communion became commonplace.

But regarding the idea of accepting different interpretations of the GIRM, I am uncertain how having different interpretations truly supports the reform of the reform.

I do not quite understand what is "sad"?

Insofar as varying interpretations may have contributed to liturgical confusion in the past, I thought it might be more effective to have a general sense of solidarity regarding interpretation.

I really apologize if I did something wrong. I have just been reading some threads and have gotten confused as to what is best.

In this thread,

http://forum.musicasacra.com/forum/discussion/3661/communion-antiphon-placement/p1

there is a comment that says:

Ioannes Andreades June 2010
Posts: 236 Don't forget about GIRM 88, which says that after communion has been distributed, a song may be sung "by the entire congregation." There is no room for a choir-only or solo-only piece after communion.

But I know that common practice is different, and I wondered why. So then the idea of "different interpretations of the GIRM" was brought up, and I realized that might be a good explanation for why sometimes things happen in Mass that vary from what it says in the GIRM.

So next I wondered on a philosophical level if it was really that good to have the different interpretations in the first place, because I thought that perhaps it was in fact the differing interpretations that made the reform of the reform necessary.

I do agree that interpretations are part of discerning the truth--that's a good point, especially if the goal is to follow the Church Fathers/hierarchy as closely as possible.

Again, I really apologize if I did something wrong with posting.

What I find sad is the idea that there is no freedom of thought in the reform of the reform movement.

Looking at things from different angles is one of the main purposes of this forum. It allows sacred musicians to discuss the topics and bring different situations and perspectives into the conversation. We will not all reach the same conclusions, and that is a good and healthy thing. Acknowledging and encouraging these discussions allows all of us to learn in order that we may serve better.

As to GIRM 88...may does not mean "must".

In other places in the GIRM the language is quite clear on something being proscribed. However, the Bishops in their wisdom have allowed the flexibility necessary to better serve the individual congregations.

It shouldn't be about personal preference here, but what best serves. Personally, I prefer silence after Communion. But it's not about me. It's about what helps the congregation pray the Mass.

For informational purposes, ours is a singing congregation (seriously you will NEVER see me post the question "how to get the congregation to sing").

So the fact that numbers of people have told me that they don't want a congregational hymn after communion because they find it distracting them from prayer, but would rather have a choral or instrumental piece, because it gives them time to quietly reflect is something I pay attention to.

Now Ignoto, I respect your right to have a different opinion, but don't plan on seeing me engage you in conversation again, unless you are willing to identify yourself. If you can't own what you post, I can't take it seriously. Pax Christi.

On the subject of silence,

"That would be silence, pure and simple"

"Then, their Lordships' silence would indicate something: that I should kill the prisoner; under the law they should be guilty, with me."

I beg your pardon in advance for the potential risk of belaboring this issue, but I am attempting to bring some resolution to the confusion that is muddling my mind at the moment.

A few years ago, the choir director asked me to sing a solo piece (not a solo part within a choir piece, but an entirely solo piece). Something about that made me uncomfortable, and I didn't know why. It wasn't jitters...I guess I just wasn't sure if that would be appropriate for me to do at Mass. It wasn't for a special feast day; I think it was Ordinary Time. It was merely to have a solo piece done. But I have no qualms about the choir director's desire to be faithful to the magisterium--I know she is definitely committed to beautiful sacred music, and, I daresay, singing the Mass.

However, now that I have started reading the parts of the GIRM that are related to music (previously I had just been reading the GIRM to try and see if I could find reasons to support that the tabernacle should not be taken out of the sanctuary), I realized why I felt uncomfortable about the solo--GIRM #88.

I realize that when GIRM #88 says "If desired, a Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may also be sung by the whole congregation," it says may and not must. But to me, that "may" seems to refer to "may be sung" as opposed to "having silence." I am not understanding how the "may" can refer to "congregation or choir or soloist." GIRM #87 seems to be pretty explicit with detailing who may sing (choir alone OR by the choir OR a cantor with the people) -- lots of ORs. So I would think that if the Church Fathers wanted to have leniency of options for what happens after the distribution of communion, then a bunch of ORs would be present in #88 as well. Plus, they put the word "whole" in there!

That said, I know it is very commonplace to have solo or choir pieces after communion. And in the grand scheme of things when there are actual serious liturgical abuses that have taken place, GIRM #88 really seems to be a minor point. I do appreciate the practical leniency that is given in the various sections of the GIRM. But this issue raises deeper questions in my mind:

1) If GIRM #88 is minor and open to interpretation which would include using options not explicitly stated, are there other GIRM numbers that are likewise considered minor and open to that type of interpretation? If so, what inherently makes one GIRM number less important than another?

2) What made solo/choir pieces after communion common in the first place? Was it a previous edition of the GIRM? Somewhere in SttL?

3) Regarding PiP preferences to quietly sit and listen, I too have enjoyed listening to post-communion solo and choir pieces many times in the past. And I understand there can be a wide range of situations which may occasionally mitigate what happens after communion.

But for those who prefer to quietly sit and listen/pray, how does #88 exclude that preference? When the singing option is chosen instead of the silence option, it seems to me that the PiPs with that preference can simply choose to listen to the other congregational members singing the "Psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn." I still do not understand what documents can support the idea of purposefully planning non-congregational singing after communion as a normative option. Are there any supportive documents?


@Wendi--I want to apologize for anything that may have been offensive in the tone or content of my posts. I hope you will be forgiving and reconsider what you said about engaging me in conversation again.