I'm sure that's true.
But still...

I have tried to use silence as such.
I have usually found it to be much more solemn to have some instrumental music or a meditative song.

In fact, we easterners refer to the westerners as "Latins." We often call ourselves, "Greek Catholics, or Byzantines." BTW, the Byzantines of the Empire called themselves, "Romans."

"...perhaps I should have been more specific. Latin-Rite-Catholics-who-use-the-Roman-Missal-of-Paul-VI-in-the-Third-typical-edition-of-John-Paul-II-translated-by-the-International-Commission-on-English-in-the-Liturgy just didn't sound right"

Hee hee. :)
"Ordinary Form" would avoid both a derogatory connotation as well as the AU confusion.
Again, I am most grateful that you started this thread at all. It is a necessary question.

Yeah, MHI brought this up the other day: in England and the US, "Roman Catholic" has been a term used to stigmatize Catholics as foreign, or a term used as part of the spurious "branch theory" ecclesiology proposed by certain Anglicans/Episcopalians.

But I propose we take the initiative and accept the term ourselves as a simple shorthand for "Roman-rite Catholics", in contrast to "Eastern Catholics". The handful of people who use the term with invidious or polemical intentions only hurt themselves by their distortions.

Well said, Kevin.

I do believe a paradigm shift has and will continue to occur. The cat is out of the bag, so to speak, and we are all chasing it for sure. I pray that we can all work to bring about the new (old?) (renewed?) practice of actually singing the Mass. Pax.

MCW, You Latinist! I Love it!

I was going to mention it earlier that I believe that hymns should be a stepping stone to the propers, and thus why it is important to underline the word liturgical in the new translation of the GIRM.

The reason why, to me, much of the hymnody used at Mass today does not fit the bill of option four is because of its non-liturgical character. For example, I think we can all agree that "Mother Dear, O pray for me", is not a liturgical chant, in any manner of speaking, right? Now, if that song was what was meant by option four, it would be difficult for people to wrap their 'eads round option three: antiphons and psalms from another collection.

Why? Because people need to be taught the language of the liturgy. This, in a way, is why a few/some/many people dislike the new translation: it uses a sacred liturgical language that is not part of everyday usage. The Psalter and the other liturgical books contain phrases, speach patterns, analogies, juxtapositions, etc. that are often not encountered in many hymn-texts, particularly those from about 1920 on. The first step to grasping the language of the scriptures would be through the langauge of liturgical hymnody, via Aquinas, Ambrose, Gregory, Abelard, and other writers who digested the whole Psalter on a weekly basis, and whose texts, consequently are embued with scriptural language.

The proper implementation of option four would whet peoples' appetites, and would be more readily accepting of options three through one.

To me the same thing went wrong with the four options of GIRM 48, as with Pius XII's "10-step-program" for making a high Mass. What were intended to be a progressive way to get from A to Zed turned into the monster we know today as 'progressive solemnity'. (insert wretching sound here)

In other words, to return to the orginal idea: If you're singing "Mother Dear, O pray for me", you won't likely be getting to "Salva Sancta parens" anytime soon. "Ave Maris stella" (a liturgical hymn from the divine office) is the stepping stone you need to get from singing hymnody at Mass to singing the propers of the Mass.

Salieri: done.

jpal: I love it!

A well made point Salieri,especially what MaryAnn found compelling.

Perhaps someday we shall have a hymnal that will make that transition that Salieri speaks of. This is the conversation that needs to happen, not another regurgitation of WI-W4.

CharlesW,

Speaking of the Romans, Monsignor Appleyard in his book "Light of the East" states that if you go to the East today and ask for a "Roman" church you will be shown a Byzantine church. If you want a western church, you have to ask for a "Latin" church.

Not making any commitments or promises, but, would this be a topic of interest for a paper in Sacred Music, or have we basically exhausted everything right here?

"Latin Church" is the official term used by the Code of Canon Law (1983) to distinguish those of us formally enrolled in the western Church. No offense there. Likewise, "Roman Missal" holds our chief form of worship. No offense there either.

Paul, you are correct.

A little more info to develop your point that the "'Roman Missal' holds our chief form of worship": The Latin Church is a single Church sui iuris. But it has three rites - Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, and each of these rites has its own missal. I believe I am correct in saying that all the other churches sui iuris have but a single rite each; indeed, many of the churches sui iuris share the same rite, the Byzantine Rite. The Latin Church also has some variant "usages" in the Roman rite.

Now, to the OP: I was reading the Fall 2008 edition of Sacred Music, published by CMAA, and found a commentary which you may be interested in by Dr. Helen Harrison on the place of hymns in the Mass.

I'm moving in the direction that hymns should act primarily as a supplement to the proper liturgical music. For example, this Sunday (Trinity) we will sing "Firmly I Believe and Truly" to Drakes Broughton after the communion chant. (We're also singing Palestrina's O Beata Trinitas at the offertory).

At my parish, there is time to do minor propers, sung by the low voices of the choir, at least one choral anthem or motet, often two, sung by the choir, and a postcommunion hymn sung by all of the worshippers, with organ filling in as needed between the singing.

@francis: does that post belong as a topic of its own?

However, I will start said subject on another thread, chonak and just refer us to there if necessary.

For a definitive answer, I defer to those who would be reviewing your submission... but the Style Sheet for Submissions might be useful: http://musicasacra.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2006/12/Sacred_Music_Style_Sheet.pdf

Page 3 discusses References in section VI.

Does that help?

There's more than one way to present references. A book like the "Chicago Manual of Style" goes into exquisite detail about it. One form, for use in footnotes, is like this:

William Peter Mahrt, The Musical Shape of the Liturgy (Richmond: Church Music Association of America, 2012), 175.

Well, Hymns can be useful for the recessional, especially in EF masses, when you know that you will have a congregation itching to sing something. (Active participation, anyone?)

Attached is "All Ye Who Seek a Comfort Sure", slightly adapted for a recessional for the First Friday Votive Mass of the Sacred Heart.

Thanks for that one, Liam. I love that hymn and haven't thought of it in a long time. Brings back great memories. I remember singing it in church as a very little girl and wondering what on earth "Undivided U-N-T" meant for the longest time until I learned to read and figured it out.

We sang "Eternal Father, strong to save" (Navy Hymn) this morning as our recessional since it mentions the Trinity and was appropriate for Memorial Day (two for the price of one!) and it was really moving in SATB.

I was happy I had found the U.S. Episcopalian (1940) version online since the second and third verses mention "peril on the land" and "peril in the air" along with "peril on the sea" in the first verse so all the armed forces were covered.

Our congregation absolutely sings the responses and ordinary at our EF Latin Mass. I print out customized handouts every Sunday with the Gregorian chant notation of the ordinary, responses and even some of the propers (Introit, Alleluia and Communion) so the people can get accustomed to seeing the music and will feel welcome to sing along.

The only issue I have with hymnody at Mass is that often the people dont know any. My parish has a staple of 10 that get moved around and then 2 or 3 per season (Christmas/Easter etc.). At the end of the day the meaning behind the devotionalism is a moot point. Why? There is often little devotion. I think para-liturgical events, home cells, family scripture sharing and the like amy improve the devotional aspect and provide a home for hymnody. For now I really cant conceive good places for hymns within the liturgy unless we become like the Orthodox. I think pre-Mass as a Gathering Hymn and post Mass as an Exerunt (Dismissal Hymn or Recessional) is good.