The Authentic Update

Progressive Solemnity as a Basis for the Sung Mass in the Ordinary Form

2011-10-04T10:45:00.000-07:00

“Between the solemn, fuller form of liturgical celebration, in which everything that demands singing is in fact sung, and the simplest form, in which singing is not used, there can be various degrees according to the greater or lesser place allotted to singing. However, in selecting the parts which are to be sung, one should start with those that are by their nature of greater importance, and especially those which are to be sung by the priest or by the ministers, with the people replying, or those which are to be sung by the priest and people together. The other parts may be gradually added according as they are proper to the people alone or to the choir alone”. (Musicam Sacram #7)

The principle known as progressive solemnity is one of those concepts that is often referred to in liturgical music but is very often misunderstood or at least poorly or incompletely understood. With the call for greater assembly participation in the music of the Mass as the reform of the liturgy progressed, there may have been some concern that the hierarchy of the various parts of the Mass, particularly those that were to be sung, might be lost. This concern can be seen in passages of Musicam Sacram such as that quote above, as well as in passages that emphasize the sung dialogues and assembly responses as being of principal importance. Absent the formal distinctions of the Low Mass, the Missa Cantata and the High Mass, and with the many options available in the 1970 Missal, the formal schema of progressive solemnity was proposed as a guide to what parts of the Mass might be sung in a given situation in order to impart a corresponding distinction of forms in the Mass.

The 2006 USCCB document on liturgical music, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship, develops the concept of progressive solemnity to a greater degree than previous documents had done, and gives the following instructions concerning the principle of progressive solemnity:

115. Singing by the gathered assembly and ministers is important at all celebrations. Not every part that can be sung should necessarily be sung at every celebration; rather “preference should be given to those [parts] that are of greater importance.”

a. Dialogues and Acclamations
Among the parts to be sung, preference should be given “especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the lector, with the people responding, or by the pries and people together.”90 This includes dialogues such as “God, come to my assistance; Lord make haste to help me” in the Office, or “The Lord be with you; And also with you” in the Mass. The dialogues of the Liturgy are fundamental because they “are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.”91 By their nature, they are short and uncomplicated and easily invite active participation by the entire assembly. Every effort should therefore be made to introduce or strengthen as a normative practice the singing of the dialogues between the priest, deacon, or lector and the people. Even the priest with very limited singing ability is capable of chanting “The Lord be with you” on a single pitch. The acclamations of the Eucharistic Liturgy and other rites arise from the whole gathered assembly as assents to God’s Word and action. The Eucharistic acclamations include the Gospel Acclamation, the Sanctus, the Memorial Acclamation, and the Great Amen. They are appropriately sung at any Mass, including daily Mass and any Mass with a smaller congregation. Ideally, the people should know the acclamations by heart and should be able to sing them readily, even without accompaniment.

b. Antiphons and Psalms
The psalms are poems of praise that are meant, whenever possible, to be sung.92 The Psalter is the basic songbook of the Liturgy. Tertullian witnesses to this when he says that in the assemblies of the Christians, “the Scriptures are read, the psalms are sung, sermons are preached.”Psalms have a prominent place in every Office of the Liturgy of the Hours. The Responsorial Psalm in the Liturgy of the Word of the Mass and of other rites “holds great liturgical and pastoral importance, because it fosters meditation on the word of God.” The Entrance and Communion chants with their psalm verses serve to accompany the two most important processions of the Mass: the entrance procession, by which the Mass begins, and the Communion procession, by which the faithful approach the altar to receive Holy Communion. Participation in song on the part of the assembly is commended during both of these important processions, as the People of God gather at the beginning of Mass and as the faithful approach the holy altar to receive the Body and Blood of the Lord.

c. Refrains and Repeated Responses
The Liturgy also has texts of a litanic character that may be sung as appropriate. These include the Kyrie and Agnus Dei of the Mass, the response to the Prayer of the Faithful at Mass or the intercessions at Morning Prayer and Evening Prayer, and the Litany of the Saints in various rites.

d. Hymns
A hymn is sung at each Office of the Liturgy of the Hours, which is the original place for strophic hymnody in the Liturgy. At Mass, in addition to the Gloria and a small number of strophic hymns in the Roman Missal and Graduale Romanum, congregational hymns of a particular nation or group that have been judged appropriate by the competent authorities mentioned in the GIRM, nos. 48, 74, and 87, may be admitted to the Sacred Liturgy. Church legislation today permits, as an option, the use of vernacular hymns at the Entrance, Preparation of the Gifts, Communion, and Recessional. Because these popular hymns are fulfilling a properly liturgical role, it is especially important that they be appropriate to the liturgical action. In accord with an uninterrupted history of nearly five centuries, nothing prevents the use of some congregational hymns coming from other Christian traditions, provided that their texts are in conformity with Catholic teaching and they are appropriate to the Catholic Liturgy.

Although it has been argued to the contrary, it is obvious to me that the above ordering of the sung parts of the Mass into these groups is intended as an ordering of them by importance and thus their priority (hierarchical), otherwise there would have been no point in saying “preference should be given to those parts that are of greater importance”. Further, if this ordering into groups by importance is to have any meaning, it would have to be true that ALL of the selections in the first group of dialogues and acclamations are of greater importance than ANY of the selections in the second group of antiphons and psalms, and ALL of the selections in the second group would be of greater priority than ANY of the selections in the third group of refrains and repeated responses, and so on down through the various groups. It is not specified anywhere if there are any selections within the groups themselves that are of higher priority than other selections within the same group, although common sense might lead one to conclude, for instance, that within the second grouping of antiphons and psalms there would be greater importance attached to the Responsorial Psalm within the Liturgy of the Word than to the Offertory Antiphon.

Following the promulgation of the Novus Ordo Mass in 1970, there was considerable confusion regarding the ordering of the musical elements of the Mass, and the parallel development of a liturgical music industry that emphasized compositions based on the larger scale texts for the Opening Hymn, Gloria, Responsorial, Offertory Hymn, Communion Hymn, Recessional Hymn, rather than the shorter snippets of text that comprise the dialogues and orations had the unfortunate effect of giving greater musical emphasis to some parts of the Mass which are of lesser importance in the liturgical form.

An even more unfortunate consequence of this misplaced priority has been the undue emphasis on congregational singing of hymns rather than on singing the liturgical dialogues that are the foundation of the Roman Rite liturgy, an emphasis that has developed to such a degree that most clergy and even many liturgical musicians are under the impression that a liturgy with minimal music is one in which the Processional and Recessional Hymn and maybe the Sanctus are sung, or perhaps a Processional Hymn and the Responsorial Psalm, or maybe just a Processional Hymn. I refer to this rather random selection of sung parts of the Mass without regard to their priority as the a la carte approach to liturgical music, where all of the possible sung options are seen as having equal value and status, or worse yet where the congregational hymn takes the place of greatest importance. This approach is precisely contrary to that given in the liturgical books and leads to the opposite of progressive solemnity, creating instead a schema in which distinctions between degrees of the sung Mass are arbitrary and often indistinguishable and where less important parts are more often sung than those of greater priority.

So if the principles laid down in Musicam Sacram and expanded upon in the USCCB document Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship were followed closely, taking into account the priorities of the various sung elements of the Mass, what would Masses of various degrees of solemnity look like? How can the categorization of sung parts according to their liturgical priorities guide the selection of what parts of the Mass are to be sung in various situations and result in a meaningful application of progressive solemnity? I would suggest that an application of the principles set out above result in four basic categories of Mass roughly corresponding to the four categories of sung parts of the Mass detailed in Sing to the Lord. Of course, these four basic categories would be in addition to a Mass in which nothing is sung. I have included a brief explanation of each of these categories and a representative set of possible selection of sung parts for each. In places where I have indicated the use of the Missal Chants it would also be equally valid to use some other approved setting: this is not so much a question of the style or the promotion of one musical vision over another, but rather it is simply a question of which parts of the Mass should be sung in view of their role in the liturgy. I would also be interested to hear some ideas about what to call such various types of sung Mass in the Ordinary Form so as not to be confused with the established forms already in existence in the Extraordinary Form.

Mass with Minimal Sung Parts

Entrance Antiphon– Recited Antiphon or Silence

Opening Dialogue – “The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Recited Confiteor and Kyrie or form B or C

Gloria – Recited Gloria

Responsorial Psalm – Recited in alternation with assembly

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Offertory - Silence

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Recited

Communion Antiphon - Recited Antiphon

Mass with Sung Antiphons and Psalms

Entrance Antiphon– Antiphon from Graduale or SEP

Opening Dialogue – “The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Recited Confiteor and Kyrie or form B or C

Gloria – Recited Gloria

Responsorial Psalm – Sung using an approved setting

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Offertory - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or Silence

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Recited

Communion Antiphon - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP

Mass with Sung Litanies

Entrance Antiphon– Antiphon from Graduale or SEP

Opening Dialogue – “The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or Recited

Gloria – Recited Gloria

Responsorial Psalm – Sung using an approved setting

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Prayer of the Faithful - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or Recited

Offertory - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or Silence

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Communion Antiphon - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP

Mass with Hymns

Entrance Antiphon– Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or a hymn appropriate to the liturgical action

Opening Dialogue – ” The Lord be with you…”and response ( simple tone)

Penitential Rite – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or other approved setting

Gloria – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or other approved setting or recited

Responsorial Psalm – Sung using an approved setting

Gospel Acclamation – Alleluia and verse (simple tone)

Prayer of the Faithful - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) setting or other approved setting

Offertory - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or a hymn appropriate to the liturgical action

Preface Dialogue – simple tone

Sanctus – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Memorial Acclamation - Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Doxology and Amen - simple tone

Lamb of God – Missal Chant (ICEL Chant) or other approved setting

Communion Antiphon - Antiphon from Graduale or SEP or a hymn appropriate to the liturgical action

Recessional - A hymn appropriate to the liturgical action or instrumental recessional or silence

Looking at the four hypothetical Masses detailed above, and it is important to add here that there are a great number of possible variations within each so long as the general principle is followed that ALL of the main components of the categories of greater priority be sung before ANY of the components of a category of lesser priority are sung, we find eliminated that all-too-common practice of singing the Four Hymns and perhaps the Responsorial Psalm while reciting most or all of the dialogues and the Sanctus. For this alone I find enough reason to advocate for such an approach to determining which sung options are to be chosen. However, a closer look at the above examples also reveals some problematic features that may lead one to ask if some revision of the categories as described in Sing to the Lord would be necessary if they are to be used in any meaningful way to determine the order of selections to be sung as proposed here.

To begin with, there is an inconsistency in the placing of the various sung parts of the Mass into specific categories. Some, such as the dialogues and acclamations are placed according to their liturgical role and the importance of their texts, while others, such as the Gloria and the Kyrie, are categorized by their supposed musical form (A hymn and a litany), with little regard for their historical designation as part of the Ordinary of the Mass. There is good reason to dispute the claim that the Kyrie and Agnus Dei are texts with a litanic character to begin with, and the placement of these in a category distinct from the rest of the Ordinary simply because they employ a three-fold repetition should be seriously questioned. The Gloria, while certainly a hymn, is also certainly a very different type of hymn in the Mass than those hymns that are frequently substituted for the antiphons, and the placement of the Gloria alongside sung elements of a significantly lower priority results in the fragmentation of the Ordinary across three different categories. Slightly modifying the categories given in Sing to the Lord such that the Gloria, Kyrie and Agnus Dei belong to the same category that includes the rest of the Ordinary and the Dialogues while entirely eliminating the third category of refrains and repeated responses and expanding the last category to encompass hymns and other various optional or substitute elements unique to specific liturgies such as the Litany of the Saints, Sequences and The Exsultet, the categories then would look something like the following:

a. The Dialogues and the Ordinary
b. Psalms and Antiphons (Propers)
c. Hymns and other elements unique to specific liturgies

This organization of the sung parts would be simpler and would have the added benefit of creating two general types of sung Mass for most Sundays– A Mass in which the Dialogues and some or all of the Ordinary are sung, and one in which all of the Dialogues and Ordinary are sung and some or all of the Psalms and Antiphons are sung. There would then be an expanded form of the second type of sung Mass for more solemn Feast Days or Solemnities (Easter, Christmas, Pentecost), where all of the Dialogues and Ordinary would be sung, along with all of the Psalms and Antiphons plus the addition of specific texts for these larger celebrations to be sung as well. This would seem to make more sense and comes about as a result of a very minor modification of the categories already in existence.

Some will argue that since hymns are substitutes for the Proper Antiphons at Mass, they should be a part of category b and not a distinct category of lower priority. There are two compelling arguments against this suggestion. First, the claim is not entirely true since there are legitimate options in the Mass where a hymn is specifically indicated, such as GIRM #86:

86. While the Priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion Chant is begun, its purpose being to express the spiritual union of the communicants by means of the unity of their voices, to show gladness of heart, and to bring out more clearly the “communitarian” character of the procession to receive the Eucharist. The singing is prolonged for as long as the Sacrament is being administered to the faithful.73 However, if there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion Chant should be ended in a timely manner.

In this case, and arguably in the singing of a hymn for the recessional, hymns are legitimately used in liturgical roles where they are not substitutes for Proper Antiphons. This is not to suggest that they can’t be used as substitutes for Proper Antiphons in any case, but rather that their use in the role indicated in GIRM #86, their established use at the recessional, AND their substitution for the Proper Antiphons are all of lower priority than the singing of the Dialogues, Ordinary and the actual Antiphons and Psalms of the Mass. This suggestion is reinforced by the passage that immediately follows the description of the categories in Sing to the Lord:

117. Proper antiphons from the liturgical books are to be esteemed and used especially because they are the very voice of God speaking to us in the Scriptures. Here, “the Father who is in heaven comes lovingly to meet his children, and talks with them. And such is the force and power of the Word of God that it can serve the Church as her support and vigor, and the children of the Church as strength for their faith, food for the soul, and a pure and lasting fount of spiritual life.”96 The Christian faithful are to be led to an ever deeper appreciation of the psalms as the voice of Christ and the voice of his Church at prayer.

Referring back to GIRM #86 which I cited above, while most of the heated discussion surrounding the revision of this and related passages in the GIRM centered on whether it was specifically indicating that the Entrance, Offertory and Communion “chants” were to be actual chant, or whether what was meant was simply a “song”, it occurred to me that there might be something more subtle being put into play. GIRM #86 creates an actual role in the Mass for the hymn, albeit a rather low-priority role. But this may be precisely the intent as this specifically indicated use for the hymn, along with its long-established use at the recessional, also a low-priority role as this is entirely optional and not a substitute for another, higher priority antiphon, and finally the admonitions in SttL 117 and GIRM 41 all reinforce the notion that while hymns can have a legitimate role in the liturgy, it is a role of distinctly lower priority than most other parts of the Mass that can be sung, and the substitution of hymns for the Proper Antiphons is similarly of lower priority than the use of the actual antiphons of the Mass.

Such a low-priority for the substitution of hymns for antiphons would indicate their use in far fewer circumstances than is generally the case now, and would ostensibly apply to specific situations where such a substitution would actually be advantageous, such as the use of a hymn such as “O Come All Ye Faithful” at Christmas, “All Glory Laud and Honor” on Palm Sunday and perhaps “Jesus Christ is Risen Today” at the Mass for Easter. In such situations, the substitution of a hymn for the indicated antiphon would take place in a liturgical schema where nearly everything else that could be sung in the Mass would be sung, and the hymns would not necessarily be sung at the exclusion of the antiphons, but perhaps in addition to them due to the large scale nature of such liturgies. In such instances, hymns would expand and ornament the liturgical form rather than reducing it by pushing out other more important sung parts. Such would be the goal of a more enlightened understanding of the role of hymns in the liturgy, where more recent developments such as the distinction made in GIRM #86 and the placing of hymns in a lower priority category than the Psalms and Antiphons could have a major positive impact via the application of progressive solemnity to the liturgy as envisioned in Musicam Sacram and expanded upon in Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship.

Returning to my original point, I would suggest that the meaningful application of progressive solemnity to the liturgy, at least as is given to us in Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship, requires that the various categories of sung parts be both hierarchical (ordered by priority) and exclusive (all parts of greater priority would be sung before any parts of lesser priority are sung), and that applying such a hierarchical ordering of sung parts, which has significant historical precedence in both liturgical law and liturgical practice, results in a sung Ordinary Form Mass that is significantly different from current practice in most parishes.

It is my hope that there might be some attention given to this very important aspect of the Ordinary Form Mass as it is developing during our lifetime, and that there might be a corresponding move away from the a la carte approach to selecting the sung options for Mass. Recent liturgical developments would seem to indicate a move in the direction of re-establishing the prioritized ordering of sung parts in the liturgy corresponding to the re-establishment of hierarchical orderings of liturgical roles for various ordained and lay ministers. The connection between the two cannot be dismissed and I would expect that musical priorities for the liturgy will be influenced to a greater degree by the organic move towards a more distinct hierarchical ordering of the liturgy in general than by any legislative means.

UPDATE ON THE MOVE

2011-09-23T14:06:00.000-07:00

Well, it's been two weeks now and I am (somewhat) settling in to my new position. There are a lot of changes...different people, different schedule, different organ (and I am, by the way, really enjoying that change!)...and a whole assortment of different things to do.

My first two weeks have been focusing on getting in touch with everybody...phone lists were woefully neglected, e-mail addresses were non-existent for many of my choir members and in some cases I have spent several hours just trying to track down information for a cantor so that I could call them! However, by this afternoon I have finished a complete information list for my choir members and have all of my cantors and office staff neatly entered in my Blackberry Contacts list!

The next big project is to get a children's choir up and running! Please pray for me and perhaps even wish me luck..

Change of a Different Sort...

2011-08-23T11:59:00.000-07:00

As I have now informed everyone who needs to know (my Pastor, close associates, etc...), I can announce for those who know me less formally that I will be resigning my current post to accept a position "up north".

OK...it's only a few miles "up north" from where I am now, and it's still in the same city.

And even though the organ is a digital instrument...

It is a vast...vast...vast improvement over that which I have played on for the last 5 years..a 1979 Baldwin 632...

Don't get me wrong...it's a charming instrument, but there comes a point in time. The one pictured there isn't mine by the way...mine is down in a pit beside the altar, and to it's credit, it is a three manual version rather than the two-manual pictured above. Strangely enough, the two and three manual versions have the exact same stops. Go figure.

And the organ and the choir are up in a choir loft...yes, a modern church designed with a functional and well-designed CHOIR LOFT. I have had dreams of such a thing since my first "position" (I was in High School and played for the early Mass on Sunday) at St. Mary's Church in Holliston, MA...a classic 18th Century structure with a beautiful Hook and Hastings up in the loft. Since then, I have been "up front"...but no longer.

The Pastor and associate are looking forward to implementing the new Missal Chant settings, and also to starting use of the Simple English Propers for the Introit and Communion antiphons. I feel so fortunate that not only do such places exist, but they are close enough that I don't even have to move...

Just Another Brick in the Wall

2011-08-14T05:07:00.000-07:00

An interesting bit of information about the direction of music in the Catholic Church today. Although not necessarily a "watershed event" for either liturgy or liturgical music in particular, World Youth Day and the week-long celebrations around it have become important public events for the Church.... a chance for larger audiences of people around the world to see the Catholic Church on display.

In the past, the liturgies at World Youth Day have been sometimes embarrassing, sometimes very much in line with what one would expect to see at an average Catholic parish, and on rarer occasions have actually been good models for what liturgy should be from an evangelical standpoint. Those are MUCH rarer occasions, by the way.

This year, some of the Masses for World Youth Day will probably raise more than a few eyebrows... not among the youth, mind you, but among those who have bought into the "cutting edge music will attract youth to the church" agenda. These Masses are actually....what would be a good description....well, they are actually very CATHOLIC!

Let's take a look at what we'll hear....

Wednesday, 17 August 2011, 12:00 noon
Votive Mass of the Holy Spirit
(Missale Romanum of 1970)

Palacio de Deportes, Madrid

Prelude: Ave Maria (Schubert) [World Youth Alliance Quartet]

Hymn at the Procession: Come, Holy Ghost (Lambillotte)
Introit: Caritas Dei (plainsong, mode ii)

Kyrie: XVI

First Reading (Hebrews 11:1-2,7-11)

Psalm: Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, for he has visited and redeemed his people. (St. Luke 1:68-75) (plainsong, mode v; Marier fauxbourdon)

Alleluia (plainsong, mode vi)

Gospel (St. Matthew 14:23-33)

Intercessory Prayers

Offertory: Confirma hoc Deus (plainsong, mode viii; with chanted verses)
Hymn at the Offertory: Come Down, O Love Divine (Down Ampney)

Sanctus: XVIII
Memorial Acclamation: Mortem tuam...
Agnus Dei: XVIII

Communion: Spiritus Sanctus docebit vos (plainsong, mode viii; with psalm verses)

Motet at the Communion: Ave Maria (Victoria)

Hymn at the Communion: O Lord, I Am Not Worthy (Gouzes)
Motet at the Communion: Ave Verum Corpus (Mozart)
Motet at the Communion: Veni Creator Spiritus (Josquin)
Marian antiphon: Ave Maria (plainsong, mode i)

Hymn at the Retiring Procession: Joyful, Joyful, We Adore Thee

Postlude: Fugue in D Major (BWV 532) (J.S. Bach)
-----

Thursday, 18 August 2011, 12:00 noon
Votive Mass of the Most Holy Name of Jesus
(Missale Romanum of 1970)
Palacio de Deportes, Madrid

Prelude: Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring (J.S. Bach) [World Youth Alliance Quartet]

Entrance Hymn: Praise, My Soul, the King of Heaven (Lauda anima)
Introit: In nomine Jesu (plainsong, mode ii)

Kyrie: XVI

First Reading (Acts 4:8-12)

Psalm: Our help is in the name of the Lord. (Isaiah 12:2-6) (plainsong, mode v; Marier fauxbourdon)

Alleluia (plainsong, mode vi)

Gospel (St. Matthew 1:18-25)

Intercessory Prayers

Offertory: Portas caeli (plainsong, mode viii)
Hymn at the Offertory: The Lord is Now About to Enter His Temple (Gouzes)

Sanctus: XVIII
Memorial Acclamation: Mortem tuam...
Agnus Dei: XVIII

Communion: Gustate et videte (plainsong, mode iii; with psalm verses)

Hymn at the Communion: Jesus, My Lord, My God, My All (Sweet Sacrament)
Motet at the Communion: Jesu dulcis memoria (Palestrina)
Motet at the Communion: Ave Verum Corpus (Byrd)
Marian antiphon: Ave Maria (plainsong, mode i)

Recessional: Alleluia! Sing to Jesus (Hyfrydol)

Postlude: Praeludium in D minor (BuxWV 140) (Buxtehude)

Certainly a bit different from years past, no? And yet there are still those who insist that there is NO WAY that Catholic music is moving back towards tradition....right?

What Would Jesus Say?

2011-08-10T06:44:00.000-07:00

This from the Catholic World News....it seems that some self-identified dissidents are critical of money...privately donated money at that...being spent on World Youth Day and the Pope's visit to Spain.

The Priests’ Forum, which claims to represent pastors in Madrid’s poor neighborhoods, objects to the corporate subsidies. Charging that the multinational corporations that are sponsoring the visit are also responsible for the worldwide economic crisis, the group argues that the Church should not accept such funding.

Critics are also complaining that the costs of WYD are excessive in light of the budget cuts that have been forced on many Western governments, including Spain’s. Echoing an argument that is advanced in the Gospels(John 12:4-5), the Priests’ Forum suggests that the money invested in WYD could have been spent on the poor.

An interesting argument to make to say the least, however, they aren't really making the convincing argument that they think they are. At least they had the sense to quote another rather prominent dissident. Here's the passage they cite (John 12:4-5):

"4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.”

But it is in the passage that immediately follows this that we find the grain of truth in what they're saying....because the complete passage (John 12: 4-6) says this:

4 But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5 “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.[b]” 6 He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

Uhmm...OK. So what would Jesus say?

8 You will always have the poor among you,[c] but you will not always have me.”

You really have to be careful when quoting scripture.

Preparing for Change

2011-07-13T07:25:00.000-07:00

There has been an awful lot of talk about "change" in the liturgy during the past several years. We've had changes in some of the minor aspects of liturgical practice, such as who can cleanse vessels after communion or whether we can use the word YAHWEH (we can't!). Things that were one way once, and now are another way. Not much problem with either of these examples...maybe some ruffled feathers since there were apparently people who actually wanted to clean the vessels after communion I guess. And a correction insert in some hymnals, or tape over the word YAHWEH for the more frugal parishes. Such changes don't require a lot of preparation because frankly, they don't have a lot of real consequence at most parishes.

Then there are the changes like the new translation that will be coming our way this Advent, or perhaps even sooner in the case of the sung parts of the Ordinary as most Diocese in the US at least are permitted to begin using these responses as soon as September. It took a while to get a firm date nailed down, but eventually there was a date given and we began preparing for the coming changes. Since there were going to be all new Mass settings coming at a given point down the road, it didn't make any sense to take on learning new ones for the past year or two. A great amount of effort has been put into preparing the priests for the new texts as well. Since there implementation is a certain thing at this point, I don't imagine that there has been much emphasis on learning the old texts at the seminary level, and preparatory and catechetical resources for the laity have all been re-tooled for the new texts as well.

After all, why continue going in the direction of something that will shortly be obsolete, or in many ways already IS obsolete? It rises to the level of absurdity to imagine that a parish would have continued down the path of using and teaching from resources based on the old translation during the past year or two as though the time when the new translation would arrive were somehow not real. No, most parishes took on a transitional posture and began integrating the changes in the Missal text into parish catechetical programs, at least at the planning and preparation level, so as to mitigate the negative effects of change when it eventually comes. It just makes good pastoral sense to do so.

But some changes don't have a definite date attached to them, at least not yet. A lot of digital ink has been expended this past week on the "controversy" surrounding some aspects of the revision of the GIRM to accompany the new Missal. Some say it's a game changer...some say it's a tempest in a tea pot.

I know this...during the past 8 years we've heard....

"Liturgical music must meet the specific prerequisites of the Liturgy: full adherence to the text it presents, synchronization with the time and moment in the Liturgy for which it is intended, appropriately reflecting the gestures proposed by the rite. The various moments in the Liturgy require a musical expression of their own."
(November 2003 - Chirograph on Sacred Music -Pope John Paul II)

"An authentic updating of sacred music can take place only in the lineage of the great tradition of the past, of Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony"
(2005 - Address to the Pontifical Academy -Pope Benedict XVI)

“The assembly of the faithful should participate in singing the Proper of the Mass as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings. When the congregation does not sing an antiphon or hymn, proper chants from the Graduale Romanum might be sung by a choir that is able to render these challenging pieces well. As an easier alternative, chants of the Graduale Simplex are recommended"
(2006 - Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship - USCCB)

"Finally, while respecting various styles and different and highly praiseworthy traditions, I desire, in accordance with the request advanced by the Synod Fathers, that Gregorian chant be suitably esteemed and employed as the chant proper to the Roman liturgy."
(2007 - Sacramentum Caritatis - Pope Benedict XVI)

"After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Gradual Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduate Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (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."
(2011 - Revised GIRM - USCCB)

And then there is the inclusion of a complete chant setting of the Dialogues and Ordinary integrated into the new Missal and which are to be included in all published resources. And there is the explosion of online resources for vernacular chant, and specifically for vernacular Propers. All of this is moving in a very easily discernable direction.

And so my question is this: Do we begin preparing for where we are headed, a little at a time, as we have wisely done with the new translation so as to mitigate the ill effects of inevitable change? Or do we do an about face and try and move away from inevitable change in an attempt to avoid it? Music is certainly an important facet of the liturgy, and one about which people get very emotional. It is inevitable that there are changes coming down the road, and it is all but certain in what direction that change is going to be.

How are we going to get ready?

R.I.P: “Other Suitable Song”

2011-07-08T09:42:00.000-07:00

Several years ago I wrote an article that posed the question “What exactly is meant by alius cantus aptus” as it appears in the documents of the Second Vatican Council and in the GIRM. It is an important question to ask because very nearly the entirety of the musical selections proffered for use in liturgy by the major music publishers and accepted and generally advocated by unknowing parish musicians and clergy fall into the category of alius cantus aptus, a term which had been translated rather loosely as “other suitable song”. I posted that article below as a reference, and if you are at all intrigued by where this is going now, I would urge you to scroll down to the next post and read The Alius Cantus Aptus: What does it really mean?

A lot of water has flooded under the bridge since that time, but little by little there have been steps taken to address the very glaring conflict between what music is actually required by the liturgy and what music seems to be permitted by the particular law in the GIRM pertaining to that music. For review purposes, let’s take a look at the current (2003) version of the GIRM and what it says:

47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

The passages in question are options #3 and #4 in par.48. Both of these seem to imply that the “song” that might be used is something quite different from the Proper chants indicated in the first two options, option 4 being the most vague, indicating merely “a suitable liturgical song”. Enough cannot be said about the effect that this option has had on liturgical music as it has been practiced in parishes for the past 45 years. The wording of option 4 seems to allow just about anything to be used in place of the designated Proper chants indicated in the first two options. And as a result, in most parishes one is likely to hear anything BUT the actual Proper chants. This paragraph is also of particular importance because of later passages in the GIRM that refer back to it, specifically those concerning the Offertory Chant and the Communion Chant, both of which are indicate as having the same options as in #48.

There has been a considerable interest in the re-introduction of the Propers for the past several years. The USCCB document on liturgical music, Sing to the Lord: Music in Catholic Worship spends a considerable amount of time on the issue of the Propers and their use, going so far as to say:

“The assembly of the faithful should participate in singing the Proper of the Mass as much as possible, especially through simple responses and other suitable settings.”72 When the congregation does not sing an antiphon or hymn, proper chants from the Graduale Romanum might be sung by a choir that is able to render these challenging pieces well. As an easier alternative, chants of the Graduale Simplex are recommended.

At the time this document was issued (2006) this seemed like an unusual thing to suggest given the predominance of songs unrelated to the Propers in use, and also the lack of any accessible resources for the Proper chants for most parishes. Many wondered how such a suggestion could be made seriously while the counter-suggestive option #4 remained in the GIRM. As long as the “other suitable song” was an option, it was likely to remain the option of choice.

And so it is with great surprise, relief and joy that it can now be confirmed that the issue has been given the attention it so greatly deserves, and the nearly 45 year conflict has been resolved. As of Advent of 2011, the corresponding passage in the new GIRM will read as follows:

47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Gradual Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduate Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (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.

Not only has the word “song” been replaced by “chant, but that chant designated in option 4 must be suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year. In and of itself, this would seem to preclude much of the musical repertoire currently in use, implying fixed texts for specific days or seasons as is the case in the Graduale. Such a body of texts was indicated as an integral part of the new translation of the Missal, as indicated in LA par.108. Although this project has not yet been undertaken , and I really do think it is a matter of yet, it’s easy to envision what form this may take, heading towards a vernacular Graduale along the lines of Adam Bartlett’s Simple English Propers or the Simple Choral Graduale of Richard Rice. I find it significant that it is given as an option that these selections may be sung by the choir alone, indicating that there is no specific requirement for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion chants to be sung by the assembly.

Jeffrey Tucker has discussed this issue, albeit from a different perspective, at the Chant Café. I join him in his excitement over this development and in his prediction that the days are numbered for the use of unrelated songs as substitutes for the Proper chants of the Mass. I also agree with his assessment that those who promote the use of “other songs” in place of the actual Mass texts will continue to do so, even if they are now in opposition to the GIRM… a document which those same individuals readily point to as the single authoritative document governing liturgical practices. I would add that they are also in opposition to the USCCB document Sing to the Lord, the Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis and, if one considers the source of par.48 of the GIRM… they are also in opposition to Sacramentum Caritatis.

Not that it will matter to them… obviously “Gather Us In” is a liturgical chant suited to the action. Of course, and Glory and Praise is practically the same as the Graduale Simplex….

The Alius Cantus Aptus: What does it really mean?

2011-07-08T07:53:00.000-07:00

The following is an article which I originally posted in June of 2007. As such, there are a few things here that seem to ignore such developments as the Simple English Propers and other resources for the Propers that have come into being since that time. I am re-posting this article in preparation for a discussion of the recently made changes in the GIRM which, for all practical purposes, now says precisely what I was claiming it actually said more than 4 years ago. As such, the suggestion to seek hymns or songs which correspond to the texts or at least to the general source of the Proper texts also seems, in retrospect, inadequate as it will soon move form the "permissible" column to the "not permissible" column.

As a Sacred Musician of the “working” variety, one of the primary tasks given to me is selecting music for Mass each week. As important as this task is, it is surprising that many musicians given this responsibility are carrying it out with little guidance or insight into what they are supposed to be doing. In my travels and discussions with many such musicians, I have discerned that there has evolved a method of sorts, which while practical and consistent with the suggestions of commercial music publishers, nonetheless falls short of the demands of the liturgy.

In short, this method consists of drawing specific “themes” from the readings within the Liturgy of the Word and extrapolating them into more general themes to guide the selection of the Entrance, Offertory, Communion and “Recessional”. This method of selecting music is given some legitimacy and a great deal of encouragement by the publishers of music resources which contain a considerable variety of songs based on scriptural texts from the lectionary cycle, particularly texts from the Gospels. As such, it is usually easy to find a variety of songs which are thematically “related” to the readings at Mass, and it appears to make sense to use these songs in conjunction with these readings. The result is a liturgy which is thematically centered around the readings, and most often the Gospel. Is this really what Catholic liturgy calls for?

To answer this question, let’s take a look at the actual texts of the Mass for a specific Sunday. For an example I’ll use the Second Sunday In Ordinary Time for Year B. The texts given here are those from the Missal for that specific Sunday.

MASS FOR THE SECOND SUNDAY IN ORDINARY TIME – YEAR B

ENTRANCE - Psalm 66

May all the earth give you worship and praise,
and break into song at your name,
O God, Most High.
Shout joyfully to God,
All you on earth sing praise to the glory of His name,
Proclaim His glorious praise.
Say to God: How tremendous your deeds!
Let all on earth worship and sing praise to you.

FIRST READING – 1 Samuel 3: 3-10

Samuel was sleeping in the temple of the LORD
where the ark of God was.
The LORD called to Samuel, who answered, “Here I am.”
Samuel ran to Eli and said, “Here I am. You called me.”
“I did not call you, “ Eli said. “Go back to sleep.”
So he went back to sleep.
Again the LORD called Samuel, who rose and went to Eli.
“Here I am, “ he said. “You called me.”
But Eli answered, “I did not call you, my son. Go back to sleep.”
At that time Samuel was not familiar with the LORD,
because the LORD had not revealed anything to him as yet.
The LORD called Samuel again, for the third time.
Getting up and going to Eli, he said, “Here I am. You called me.”
Then Eli understood that the LORD was calling the youth.
So he said to Samuel, “Go to sleep, and if you are called, reply,
Speak, LORD, for your servant is listening.”
When Samuel went to sleep in his place,
the LORD came and revealed his presence,
calling out as before, “Samuel, Samuel!”
Samuel answered, “Speak, for your servant is listening.”
Samuel grew up, and the LORD was with him,
not permitting any word of his to be without effect.

PSALM RESPONSE: Psalm 40

Here I am, Lord, I come to do your will.
I have waited, waited for the LORD,
and he stooped toward me and heard my cry.
And he put a new song into my mouth,
a hymn to our God.

Sacrifice or offering you wished not,
but ears open to obedience you gave me.
Holocausts or sin-offerings you sought not;
then said I, “Behold I come.”

“In the written scroll it is prescribed for me,
to do your will, O my God, is my delight,
and your law is within my heart!”

I announced your justice in the vast assembly;
I did not restrain my lips, as you, O LORD, know.

SECOND READING – 1 Corinthians 6: 13-20

Brothers and sisters:
The body is not for immorality, but for the Lord,
and the Lord is for the body;
God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power.
Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ?
But whoever is joined to the Lord becomes one Spirit with him.
Avoid immorality.
Every other sin a person commits is outside the body,
but the immoral person sins against his own body.
Do you not know that your body
is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you,
whom you have from God, and that you are not your own?
For you have been purchased at a price.
Therefore glorify God in your body

GOSPEL – John 1: 35-42

John was standing with two of his disciples,
and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said,
“Behold, the Lamb of God.”
The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them,
“What are you looking for?”
They said to him, “Rabbi” — which translated means Teacher —,
“where are you staying?”
He said to them, “Come, and you will see.”
So they went and saw where Jesus was staying,
and they stayed with him that day.
It was about four in the afternoon.
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter,
was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
He first found his own brother Simon and told him,
“We have found the Messiah” — which is translated Christ —.
Then he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said,
“You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” — which is translated Peter.

OFFERTORY: Psalm 66

Sing with joy to God, All the earth,
Sing a psalm to His name.
Come and hear, all you who fear God,
And I will tell you what great things
The Lord has done for my soul.

Cry out with joy to God, All the earth!
O sing to the glory of His name.
O render Him glorious praise,
Say to God: How tremendous your deeds.

Because of the greatness of your strength,
your enemies cringe before you.
Before you all the earth shall bow,
Shall sing to you, sing to your name.

Come and see the works of God,
Tremendous His deeds among men.
He turned the sea into dry land,
They passed through the river dry-shod.

O peoples, bless our God,
Let the voice of His praise resound.
Of the God who gave life to our souls,
And kept our feet from stumbling.

COMMUNION: John 1 / Psalm 34

We know and believe in God’s love for us.
Glorify the Lord with me,
Together let us praise His name,
I sought the Lord and he answered me,
From all my terrors He set me free.

Taste and see that the Lord is good,
Happy is he who seeks refuge in Him.
Revere the Lord, you His Saints,
They lack nothing, those who revere Him.

Come children and hear me
That I may teach you fear of the Lord;
Turn aside from evil and do good,
Seek and strive after peace.

Many are the trials of the just man,
But from them all the Lord will rescue him.
The Lord ransoms the souls of his servants,
Those who hide in him shall not be condemned.

And so, if we look at the texts for this Sunday’s Mass in their entirety, we can make a few observations. First, of the seven texts designated for the Mass, four of them are intended to be sung. Of these four sung texts, the only one which we are likely to hear in most parishes is the Responsorial. Second, the Entrance, Offertory and Communion are drawn from the Psalter, in this example two passages from Psalm 66 (Entrance and Offertory) and a setting of Psalm 34 (Communion). By eliminating these three texts from the liturgy, we rob the liturgy of the Psalms, regarded as the “prayer of the church”. The Psalms are the “voice of the faithful” as opposed to the readings which are the “voice of God”, and in an approach to liturgy that seeks to increase the participation of the faithful, wouldn’t it make sense to include more Psalmody rather than less?

The final observation is perhaps the most difficult observation to make: The considerable contrast between the “theme” of the readings in the Liturgy of the Word and the “theme” of the designated texts for the Entrance, Offertory and Communion. The thematic “nugget” that would likely be drawn from the scripture readings is “Here I Am”… a statement of our service to God. This is reflected in the reading from Samuel and responded to in the Responsorial. The Epistle Reading reminds us that we are to prepare ourselves for service to Christ, and the Gospel recounts the calling of Simon Peter to serve Christ. Extrapolating this into a general theme for the liturgy, the selection of “songs” for the liturgy might look something like the following:

Entrance Song: Here I Am, Lord (Schutte)

Psalm Response: Psalm 40- Here I Am, Lord

Offertory: Servant Song

Communion: Here I Am (Ward)

With the selection of these songs for their thematic relationship to the readings, the result is a liturgy focused on our service to God in both the readings and the sung texts of the Mass. But is that really what this liturgy intends? Consider for a moment those “other” texts given for the Mass, the Entrance, Offertory and Communion Antiphons.

Psalm 65, which is given for both the Entrance and Offertory, is a song of praise to God for his protection from our enemies. The Entrance Antiphon implores “All the Earth” to give praise to God for his mighty deeds. The Offertory Antiphons expands on this with a litany of those deeds; sheltering us from our enemies, guiding us through difficulties to safety, keeping us from stumbling. Considering only these texts, the thematic “nugget” would be something like “Give praise to God for the many things he does for us”. This realizations leads to an interesting understanding about the actual dynamic of this particular liturgy.

Taken in their entirety, the complete texts of the Mass create a dialogue between God and his faithful: The Word of God calls us to serve him, and we respond by crying out “Here I Am, I come to do your will” in debt and gratitude for His help, guidance and protection. Notice that the texts are arranged in such a way that God (through the readings) calls us to serve Him, and we respond (in the Antiphons and Psalms) by giving him praise and thanking him for his protection. Considering the complete set of texts, the selection of songs might look something like this:

Entrance Song: All The Earth

Psalm Response: Psalm 40- Here I Am Lord

Offertory: Psalm 96- Proclaim His Marvelous Deeds

Communion: Taste and See (Ps. 34)

The result is quite a different set of selections which would probably not be considered if only the readings were taken into account. It might look like there is now too great an emphasis on the Antiphon texts, however keep in mind that all three readings express God’s call to serve Him. The dialogue between the texts proclaimed to us in the scriptures, and those which we, in turn, proclaim to God creates an authentically liturgical dynamic that is very different from that which is created when we simply mirror or mimic the words which God has spoken to us. Our participation in the liturgy is clearly proscribed for us in the texts designated for us to sing, we need only pay attention to them!

And so now I get to the phrase used in the title of this article –Alius Cantus Aptus. This is the phrase used to describe the fourth of the four options given for settings of the Entrance, Offertory and Communion Antiphons in both Sacrosanctum Concilium and Musicam Sacram. Lest these sources be thought of as “no longer relevant” or “out of date”, consider that these options are suggested in the most recent guideline Sing To The Lord, and in the new GIRM as well. The phrase is often translated as another suitable song, but can also be translated as another suitable setting. The latter makes more sense when we consider that this is the fourth option of four that are given, the first three of which are all settings of the designated text from the Missal.

The question that is of greatest importance then is this: What is meant by suitable? We can see that the first two options given are specified settings of the designated text (from the Graduale Romanum or the Graduale Simplex), and the third option is a setting from an approved collection of Psalms and Antiphons which presumably would also use the designated text. As such, it would make sense that the fourth option would be an unspecified setting of the designated text from some other source. In this context, alius cantus aptus becomes “some other setting” of the designated text, not just some other song. What makes a setting suitable is its use of the designated text.

So how can all of this help in selecting music for Mass? To begin with, just the understanding that there are actual texts that belong in the liturgy which we are removing and replacing with texts of our own choosing is a great first step. Realizing this should give us pause and perhaps urge us to consider why we are doing so, and whether there are other, better options that we aren’t exercising. There is already within the Church an increasing emphasis on the use of Proper Texts for the liturgy, and there will likely be settings of these texts composed and published for our use during the next few years. When such resources are widely available, it would be irresponsible to not make use of them. Although such resources are not widely available now, there are still ways to incorporate these texts into our preparation of the liturgy, even if not verbatim. As has been said many times… do not shy from the imperfect while striving for the perfect.

The “perfect” in this case would be the actual Gregorian settings of the Proper texts to be sung by the assembly with the assistance of a cantor or schola. That would be the perfect scenario. While that is certainly the direction in which things have started moving, even the most optimistic workers in the vineyard have to admit that is probably a number of years away. In the meantime, why not use these Proper texts to guide the selection of the music which we are using to replace them each week?

The example I give above may be simplistic, and not to everyone’s taste, but at least it makes use of songs that are settings of the actual Proper texts for that Sunday. In the case of the Offertory I substituted Psalm 96, which is closely related to Psalm 66, both in actual wording and certainly in meaning. For the Communion, I made use of a setting of Psalm 34 which, while not word-for-word the same as the Proper text, is at least a paraphrase. And since this is a widely used text for communion songs anyhow, why not make use of it on the Sundays where it is the specified text. Are these “perfect” options? Not by any means, but they are a considerable improvement over songs which re-iterate the texts of the scripture readings at the exclusion of the Proper texts and their distinct role within the liturgy. As a transition from “where we are” to “where we are going”, this approach to music liturgy can begin to move in the right direction with music we already know while working towards that “perfect” liturgy at some point down the road as resources become available.

If there is one obstacle now to the use of the actual Proper texts, it is the problem of resources. As I noted above, there will very likely be several complete settings of the Proper Antiphons available within a few years. At this time, there are several options that are available, although each of them requires some work on the part of the musician. The primary resource for the Antiphons is the 1974 Graduale Romanum – the official “Choir Book” of the Catholic Church.

There are three versions of the Graduale – The Graduale Simplex (Simple Graduale), The Graduale Triplex (Triple Graduale) and the Gregorian Missal. Each of these is published for a specific purpose – The Graduale Romanum contains the complete set of liturgical chants in Latin with all 18 Ordinaries. The Graduale Simplex contains the chants for the Sundays and Holydays and a limited number of Ordinaries. The Graduale Triplex is a “study version” of the Graduale Romanum, presenting the Gregorian notation alongside the more ancient lineless neumes from the Laon text and the manuscript from the St. Gall family. While interesting to chant scholars, this is not of much use to the parish musician unfamiliar with Latin. The third of these books, the Gregorian Missal would be appropriate for the purpose I have outlined above, since it is laid out in the form of a standard Missal and provides English translations in the margin. These three books are the only official and approved resources for music in the Roman Rite.

Another excellent option that is easier still to navigate is the Anglican Use Gradual. This book is the Gradual approved for the Anglican Use Catholic Church and is used regularly in every Anglican Use parish in the United States. It contains the Entrance, Psalm, Offertory and Communion chant for each Sunday and Holyday arranged in order for the Church Year, and is entirely in English. For the Church musician who wants a readily available resource for the Antiphon texts for each Sunday, The Anglican Use Missal might be the best option. It is also available online for free in PDF format, something which should be a pre-requisite for ALL church music in the future, but that is another matter for another time!

As we continue to move forward in this time of the Liturgical Reform we also continue to grow in our understanding of the Second Vatican Council and its teachings about that reform. Each of the Holy Fathers during and since the time of the council have called us to an “authentic interpretation” of these teachings. Pope Benedict has specifically called us to re-examine these teaching in a “hermeneutic of continuity”… meaning an interpretation that grows organically from the great liturgical traditions of the church throughout her history. One such great tradition is the liturgical music of the church, and restoring the actual Mass texts to our worship is perhaps the best first step we can take. And best of all… it’s really not that hard to do!

Corpus Christi at Christ the King

2011-06-23T05:28:00.000-07:00

This evening at 6;30PM will be the Mass for Corpus Christi at Christ the King parish in Sarasota Florida. The Scholae have prepared the following program...

Schubert, Salve Regina (St. Philomena Choir)

Introit: "Cibavit eos" (Scholettes )

Kyrie: Missa Secunda, Hassler

Gloria: Missa Secunda, Hassler

Gradual: "Oculi omnium" (St. Philomena Choir + Cindy)

ScSequence: Lauda Sion TRH 106 (women odd, men even)

Credo III (omnes)

Offertory: "Sacerdotes Domini" (men's schola)
Jubilate Deo, Mozart

Sanctus: Missa Secunda, Hassler

Agnus: Missa Secunda, Hassler

Communion:
"Quotiescumque manducabitis" (men's schola )
Ave Verum, Byrd
Sacris Solemniis STG 111

Procession: Pange Lingua TRH 122 (v 1-4)
Adoro Te Devote TRH 101
Ave Verum Corpus TRH 103
Jesu Dulcis Memoria TRH 90
Anima Christi TRH 102

Benediction: Tantum Ergo TRH 122 (v 5-6)
Holy God We Praise Thy Name TRH 217

There may be recordings to post in a day or two...

An Excellent Article on the SEP

2011-06-20T09:52:00.000-07:00

For the past year and a half, we have used the Simple English Propers as a resource for the Communion Antiphon, and more recently, since the beginning of Lent 2011, for the Entrance Antiphon at most of our parish Masses. This is an interesting article from the Catholic Phoenix about this new music resource and the impact it is having on Catholic liturgical music across the US.

USCCB President Authorizes Gradual Introduction of Musical Settings of New Roman Missal Starting In September

2011-06-17T08:08:00.000-07:00

Modification will help people learn new parts, ease implementation

BELLEVUE, Washington—Archbishop Gregory Aymond of New Orleans, chairman of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Committee on Divine Worship, announced that diocesan bishops may permit the gradual introduction of the musical settings of the people’s parts of the Mass from the new Roman Missal in September. Primarily this affects the the Gloria, the Holy, Holy, Holy and the Memorial Acclamations.

This variation to the implementation of the Roman Missal, Third Edition, set to take place all at once on November 27, was authorized by USCCB president, Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York, and adopted by the committee to allow parish communities to learn the various parts of the new translation “in a timely fashion and an even pace.”

The Committee on Divine Worship made the decision in response to requests from several bishops, echoed by the National Advisory Council. Some suggested that the various acclamations could be more effectively introduced throughout the fall, so that when the full Missal is implemented on the First Sunday of Advent, the congregation will have already become familiar with the prayers that are sung.
“I ask you to encourage this as a means of preparing our people and helping them embrace the new translation,” Archbishop Gregory told the bishops. The announcement took place June 16, during the U.S. bishops Spring Assembly near Seattle.

The Pentecost Sequence

2011-06-11T11:37:00.000-07:00

Like many parishes this year, we will be chanting the sequence for the first time in probably many years rather than either reading it (ughh...) or singing it to a forced metrical hymn (the OLD 100th setting comes to mind...).

This is a good thing, and only required a little bit of ingenuity on my part. I say that because I was asked first that it be sung in English (OK...we've been doing a lot of vernacular chant as of late) and second that I use the text given in the Missalette.

Yikes. The text in the missalette is intended to be sung to a metrical hymn, but thank heavens they just printed the text rather than the actual metrical setting as well. This enabled me to do a bit of improvising. What came to mind was something like a chant hymn, using an AA-BB form rather like the Dies Irae; Two distinct melodic strophes sung twice each in alternation. Rather than use an existing chant hymn (not to mention that I couldn't find one in 677 meter that sometimes changes to 767 or 777...it was just too strange!) I decided to just, well....make one up.

I don't know whether this is really the best solution here...but given what I had to work with, it isn't such a bad one if I may say so myself. I may want to fix the "Amen; Alleluia" at the end...after listening to it I don't think it really works all that well.

VENI SANCTE SPIRITUS - Pentecost Sequence (English)

I wonder if this sort of thing is going to become more common in years to come?

Ascension Thursday at Christ The King, Sarasota

2011-06-06T08:59:00.000-07:00

I've finally had the chance to get back to making posts... it has been a very busy Easter/Divine Mercy/First Communion/Ordination/Graduation season... it's nice to finally have some time on my hands!

I'm posting the audio of some of our Ascension Thursday Mass at Christ The King Parish in Sarasota. Although small, I think our schola sounds pretty good! Leo Labreque does an excellent job with us given the VERY limited rehearsal time and unpredictable attendance...

Ascension Thursday Music Selections

Introit - Viri Galileai

Offertory -Ascendit Deus

Communio - Psallite Domino

Sanctus Mass VIII - (Polyphonic Setting)

Motet - Ave verum Corpus (Mozart)

Motet - Exsultati Justi in Domino

Now...as I said before, I think we sound pretty good, which brings me to another point I would like to make. For nearly 50 years or so, our impression of what chant (and polyphony) should sound like has been shaped to a great extent by recordings, as this music has been mostly absent from the liturgical life of Catholics worldwide. As such, there has arisen an attitude that unless you can sound like the Monks of Santo Domingo De Silos you have no business singing at Mass. This is worrisome, because the recording studio can produce a kind of perfection that is never really possible to duplicate, either technically nor accoustically.

I also find this attitude to be much like what I used to find expressed at Life Teen conferences regarding the music component of that particular venture. There, it was emphasized that it was important to get professional (paid is possible) musicians and to try and replicate the sound of the recordings as closely as possible and that anything less would bee seen as "lame" or "amateur" by the intended teen audience. While studio recordings are great for a lot of reasons, they aren't and shouldn't be the model for what we sing at Mass, whether in the OF or EF!

I hope you enjoy the recordings..

Holy Thursday

2011-04-22T07:29:00.001-07:00

OK... I know I said just yesterday that I would not have time to post, but I have a few minutes here and just wanted to say a few words about the Holy Thursday Mass here at my parish last evening.

I have to say that it was one of the high points of my work in parish music up to now, although I have to say that was not by any accident or "luck"... there was a lot of preparation and rehearsal, both by our musicians and by the liturgical staff of our parish, including the Pastor and Associate, our Deacons, Lectors and student servers. We spent yesterday early afternoon doing a final "run through" of the liturgy with the servers... when and how to incense the altar, how to accompany the Deacon to the Ambo to incense the Gospel, and a hundred other details (like how to walk backwards while incensing the Priest while processing to the Chapel for Reposition at the conclusion of the Mass!).

Our choirs had rehearsed the hymns and chants for Mass for the last month and a half and sang confidently and beautifully. For the past two years our Antiphon Schola has sung the communion Antiphon for Holy Thursday. This year we made use of the Richard Rice setting in the Simple Choral Graduale, although I elaborated on the psalm-tone given for the verses. Although these settings have been criticized by some for being "formulaic" and lacking a melody related to the text, when they are sung within the context of the liturgy the impression they leave is quite different. I received several comments about how striking and "holy" it sounded as the Priests received communion... one said that it reminded them of chant they had heard in an Orthodox Church several years ago.

This year we added the chanted Entrance Antiphon, making use of the setting from the Simple English Propers by Adam Bartlett. I cannot say enough about what a gift these settings are to parish musicians. Our Schola learned it with minimal effort. I made a recording and put it online for them to practice, so they all came to rehearsal with the notes learned already, saving valuable rehearsal time for some details of phrasing and tempo. And this is real chant... not a "chant flavored" song, or a "chant like mantra"... it is actual chant for the texts of the Mass.

And so as our Mass began, rather than a series of announcements or an amplified welcome by the cantor accompanied by a series of instructions for where to find this or that song, the usual chatter and murmering of the people in the pews was quickly silenced by the unaccompanied sound of a voice proclaiming "Let our glory be in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ...". Some people kneeled in prayer, others closed their eyes and relaxed. All listened in silence. And when the organ introduced the Processional Hymn, all joined in singing "Lift High The Cross"... and together we indeed "Gloried in the Cross of Our Lord".

Holy Week - Easter- Divine Mercy Sunday Blogging Break

2011-04-20T12:06:00.000-07:00

It's unlikely I'll be making any posts here or even taking much time to read other blogs for the next week or two. My calendar is heavily booked up from morning into evening with rehearsals, meetings, liturgies and other Holy Week related activities...then of course there is EASTER! After that, I have a brief week to assemble, rehearse and execute what will be about a 3-hour long Divine Mercy Sunday devotional liturgy, as well as practice with the Schola for the Second Anniversary Mass at Christ The King Parish (FSSP) on May 7th which includes a variety of chants and a Mass setting that I very definitely need to review (Hassler Missa Brevis).

I'm not complaining mind you... this is one of those things that just happens every year and has happened every year for as long as I've been doing this...which is a pretty long time now! Pope John Paul II could have had a little more compassion for the faithful church musicians by placing Divine Mercy Sunday, oh let's say sometime in July.

Palm Sunday

2011-04-18T05:59:00.000-07:00

As we all began our celebrations of Holy Week with yesterday's Masses for Palm Sunday, I considered how very different these liturgies likely were this year from just a few years ago, and how very different they will be at this time next year. In many parishes across the country, Catholics might have heard the actual Entrance Antiphon for Palm Sunday - Hosanna Filio David - either the Latin version from the Gradual or perhaps one of the excellent English versions now available, such as Adam Bartlett's "Simple English Propers", rather than a substitute. The ready availability of these resources and their ease of use means that for the first time in many years, it was possible to celebrate the liturgy of Palm Sunday as it was intended rather than making it an occasion for creativity or an exercise in attempting to extract participation from the assembly at a time when the assembly's participation is neither envisioned nor required by the liturgical structure.

I always find the Procession for Palm Sunday fascinating, as it is one of the very few places in the Missal where there is both an Antiphon (Hosanna Filio David) AND a Hymn (Gloria, laus et honor) given for a specific liturgy. This is important because it makes clear the exceptional nature of THIS procession....a procession that is different from the processions of other Masses on other Sundays. Sadly, this high point has been diminished by the use of hymns for the procession on EVERY Sunday throughout the year, making this "Triumphant entrance" of Jesus into Jerusalem just like every other Sunday in the vast majority of parishes. How wonderful would it be if our celebration of Jesus's entrance into the Holy City were something exceptional, something out of the ordinary? Such is the genius of the actual liturgical structure of the Roman Rite, if only we could set our own vanity and personal preferences aside and celebrate it as it has been given to us!

Perhaps it will take some time...and a change of heart...before we are once again ready accept and follow the wisdom of 2000 years of tradition and liturgical development over our own desire to put our personal signature on our worship. It's a difficult step that will require a great deal of humility, and that's a rare commodity these days! But there is hope in the knowledge that there are more and more instances of faithful celebrations of the liturgy today than there were even a few years ago, and there will be more such celebrations this week than there were last year during Holy Week. And there will be an even greater number next year for the simple reason that when the liturgy is faithfully celebrated, it ALWAYS WORKS. Without fail...

And so as we enter Holy Week, we can perhaps approach our own celebrations with a renewed sense of humility. Are we celebrating what we are given, or do we still want to sign our own giant JOHN HANCOCK to all that we do? In years past there were so many excuses, but as we are given better texts, better musical settings and a greater awareness of our liturgical past, those excuses are withering and becoming tired.

An Early Look at Things to Come

2011-04-12T06:44:00.001-07:00

Jeff Ostrowski at Corpus Christi Watershed has given a preview of what may well be the future of Catholic Liturgical resources. This one comprehensive book contains the readings and Propers for each Sunday... particularly settings of the Responsorial and the TEXTS of the Introit, Offertory and Communion Antiphons.

124_SCRIBD_hymnal

Although this is an early version, I have no doubt that this type of resource will catch on quickly as an alternative to the disposable resources now so much in favor.

The Bees Are Back!!

2011-04-07T09:50:00.000-07:00

The Bees are back.... and I don't mean in the Exsultet! No, these are actual bees, and they are swarming the Jasmine grove in our front yard.

And I don't mean the cute honeybees... these are the honkin' big ones that sound like a P-51 Mustang in a full dive! Pollinating away today...

They don't seem interested in stinging, but they will circle around you buzzing like crazy if you get too near to them. They also chase down other bees and the ubiquitous dragonflies that make their home in the grove as well.

Charlie, our Basset Hound, stays safely inside watching them do their thing through the front window...

Time to get back to work now...

An Interesting Point of View

2011-04-05T08:45:00.000-07:00

I came across this article by a former Church Musician via the "Chant Cafe". Almost more interesting than the article itself are the comments made to it. As bob dylan sang - "The times, they are a-changin'"!

Ave Maria Chant Conference and a Workshop on the New Translation

2011-04-05T06:08:00.001-07:00

This past weekend was the Gregorian Chant Conference at Ave Maria University... an excellent event that is only in it's third year and already getting a lot of attention. As I've said quite a few times in quite a few places, events such as this would have been impossible only a few years ago... the attendees at this conference were not specialists or academics from Latin Mass communities, but were musicians and ordinary parishioners from parishes across the state. Hopefully this event will continue in coming years as we continue the mission of bringing about the restoration of sacred music in the liturgy. A surprise element of the conference (for me at least!) was the letter from Bishop Dewane to the conference attendees. It's encouraging to hear such words from our Bishop.

Which leads to the workshop this coming weekend at the Cathedral of the Epiphany on the Chants of the new Translation. This is the second session of the workshop (the first session was on Saturday, March 12th) and we are expecting between 80 and 100 musicians from the Northern deanery of our Diocese. The point of these workshops is to introduce our musicians to the chants that will accompany the new translation of the missal, and emphasize to them that these chants will be the "normative setting" of the sung Ordinary for the Diocese of Venice as Bishop Dewane has indicated. Beginning next year, the Missal Chants will be used for all Diocesan Masses (Chrism Mass, Ordinations, Anniversaries, etc...) and all parishes are expected to learn the chant setting of the Ordinary beginning next November.

It's great to see so much happening... I only wish it wasn't all happening two weeks before Holy Week!

A Letter From Our Bishop

2011-04-03T05:41:00.000-07:00

I received the following letter from our Bishop, Frank Dewane, at the Gregorian Chant Conference this weekend at Ave Maria University. It is encouraging to know that our own Bishop is very enthusiastic about the efforts we make in regards to Catholic sacred music!

Of particular interest is his recognition of the "resurgence" of traditional sacred music, and that it is not a mere coincidence, but is the work of the Holy Spirit.

It is perhaps significant that Bp. Dewane has been most supportive of the catechetical efforts we have made up to now with our Diocesan musicians as regards learning the chants of the New Translation of the Missal, and that he has further designated that the chant settings of the new texts will be promoted and used in all parishes, and will be the setting used at all Diocesan functions such as Chrism Mass and Ordinations.

Many thanks and much gratitude to our Bishop, Frank Dewane.

Second Anniversary Mass: Christ the King, Sarasota FL

2011-03-24T09:25:00.001-07:00

On Saturday, May 7th at 11:00am, Christ The King (FSSP) in Sarasota, Florida will celebrate its second anniversary as a parish in the Diocese of Venice. We are indeed fortunate to have a parish dedicated to the Extraordinary Form here in our area and we are grateful to Bishop Frank Dewane for his support and encouragement.

Our Schola will be singing at this Mass - this is not a group of paid professionals, but a group of very dedicated individuals under the direction of Leo Labreque. There is even a children's choir who sing in Latin without any problems at all... imagine that!

Here is the program for May 7th:

Votive Mass of Christ the King

Introit: "Dignus est Agnus" (Scholettes)
http://renegoupil.org/chantfiles/67/

Kyrie: Hassler, Missa Secunda

Gloria: Hassler, Missa Secunda

Gradual: "Alleluia, Alleluia, potestas eius, potestas aeterna..." http://renegoupil.org/chantfiles/69/

followed by
"Alleluia: Habet in vestimento et in femore suo scriptum: Rex regum…" (Scholettes)

Credo III

Offertory: "Postula a me..." (men)
http://renegoupil.org/chantfiles/70/

Exultate Justi, Viadana

Sanctus: Hassler, Missa Secunda

Post Consecration: Jesu Rex Admirabilis, Palestrina (sheet)

Agnus: Hassler, Missa Secunda

Communion: "Sedebit Dominus Rex in aeternum..." (men)
http://renegoupil.org/chantfiles/71/

Ave Verum, St.-Saens (sheet)
Ave Maria, Victoria (sheet)
Veni Jesu Amor Mi, Cherubini (sheet)
Anima Christi (all drone, Sister solo, women sing Miserere Domine) (if needed)

Exit: Crown Him with Many Crowns (DIADEMATA: 3 verses)

For those who might be able to attend:

Directions to the Christ the King from I-75: Exit # 205. Take the Clark Road exit (West), which becomes Stickney Point Road. Turn right (North) onto Highway 41 (Tamiami Trail) then left (West) onto Meadowood Street and go approximately 1/4 miles.

Hope to see you there!

Music Preparations: Third Sunday of Lent

2011-03-21T04:40:00.000-07:00

Beginning with the First Sunday of Lent this year, I began the practice of chanting the Introit at the start of all Masses except our 9:00am Folk Group Mass. So far, the response from the parishioners has been so encouraging... there have been at least one or two people after every Mass who come to me saying how beautiful it is to hear these chants, how they create a kind of "quiet time" before Mass begins and again before communion (we've been chanting the Communion Antiphon immediately after the Priest receives communion since last September).

Although not a perfect arrangement, we've taken the approach that I think has been the most successful for those parishes where the "4-Hymn Sandwich" has been the norm for a long time - chanting the Introit before the Processional Hymn, and chanting the Communion Antiphon during the time when the EM's are receiving communion before going to their stations (this can often be as long as 5 minutes!). I've heard this approach referred to jokingly as the "Stuffed Mass" ..... an appropriate term since the presence of the Antiphons really renders the hymns pointless. However, it is probably this approach that has allowed for the ready acceptance of these chants by both the parishioners and the Priests of our parish.

Just for an example, here is what my preparations look like for this coming Sunday (Lent III)

Third Sunday of Lent
March 27th , 2011

Introit – Oculi mei (Ps 25 (24): 15, 16) (Simple English Propers)

My eyes are forever turned towards the Lord; *
for he shall release my feet from the snare;
look upon me and have mercy on me,
for I am abandoned and destitute.

Processional Hymn- I Heard The Voice of Jesus Say (Kingsfold)

Kyrie – Mass XVIII

Psalm 95- If today You Hear His Voice ( Fr. Weber chant setting)

Gospel Verse - (Jesu Dulcis Memoria setting)

R/.Praise to you, Lord Jesus Christ;
King of endless glory!

V/. “Lord, you are truly the Savior of the world,
Give me living water that I may never thirst again”. R/.

Offertory Hymn – As The Deer Longs (O WALY WALY)

Sanctus – Land of Rest (Proulx)
Memorial -“Lord by Your Cross...”
Amen -(Proulx)
Agnus Dei – Mass XVIII (Latin)

Communion Antiphon – Passer invenit (Ps 84 (83): 4, 5) (Simple Propers)

The sparrow has found herself a home, *
and the turtle dove a nest in which to lay her young:
at your altars, O Lord of hosts, my King and my God!
Blessed are they who dwell in your house,
they shall praise you forever and ever.

Communion: I Heard The Voice of Jesus Say (Tallis)

Recessional Hymn – Shepherd of Souls, Refresh and Bless

An Excellent Article on Vernacular Chant

2011-03-14T05:32:00.001-07:00

Fr. Anthony Ruff, well known as one of the great advocates of liturgical chant, has penned the following article for the March Edition of LTP's Pastoral Liturgy magazine.

The Value of Unaccompanied Vernacular Chant in the Liturgy

Forget for a moment the baggage that Fr. Ruff carries as a result of his open criticism of the new translation. This has nothing to do with that issue - when speaking about liturgical chant, Fr. Ruff is definitely on his home turf.

What is perhaps most interesting, and has begun to happen more frequently with little fanfare or comment is the very fact that this article appears in Pastoral Liturgy, not exactly a mouthpiece for things liturgically conservative! And during the past year similar articles have begun popping up in places like the GIA Quarterly and OCP's Today's Liturgy, in addition to the expected places like Sacred Music Magazine and the Adoremus Bulletin.

Chant is once again becoming part of the mainstream music culture of the Church at an accelerated pace, thanks in large part to the new translation of the Roman Missal, and thanks also to the tireless efforts of the CMAA (Church Music Association of America) and their outreach and training programs that have multiplied in the past three years.

I have begun my own "Resource Page" for online resources for liturgical chant.

Today's Workshop on the New Translation

2011-03-12T15:35:00.000-08:00

This morning (Saturday March 12th, 2011) we held the first of a series of workshops for the musicians of the Diocese of Venice on the musical component of the new translation. Sessions included "Changes in the People's Parts", "The Role of the Cantor" and a reading session in which we sang through the ICEL chant settings of the Ordinary. The session was attended by perhaps 60 Directors and Cantors from the Southern Deanery (Lee and Collier Counties).

There was a lot of discussion about the new translation, and as was expected, a great deal of misinformation expressed. There were a lot of questions that people wanted answered. What I found most interesting was that there was actually very little negativity about the new translation, and what negativity there was mostly concerned rumors or "facts" that they had been told which turned out to be wrong. Once we began singing the settings, any negativity disappeared.

One interesting moment occurred when we put the Gloria setting up on the screen and without any introduction began singing it. It only took about one line of the notation for everybody to "get the hang" of the ICEL setting and the remainder of it was sung with no problems (Okay, the typical Mode III "Amen" caused some problems for those who are not familiar with such figures from Gregorian Chant, so we had to go over it a few times).

Here's the real kicker though... when we finished, one of the cantors raised her hand and asked "So what will the setting of the new Gloria text look like?"

We pointed out that this WAS the new text,

"Ohhh... your right it is!". Several others in the audience also sounded surprised, not noticing as they were singing that this was the new translation.

The key to introducing the new translation is found in the music folks....use it!

My Lenten Challenge

2011-03-07T12:44:00.000-08:00

I have decided to "give up" taking part in on-line arguments on blogs. In particular I've found that I spend way too much time arguing about things that shouldn't even be issues of contention( in particular the new missal translation) and that after a while it's of no real use anyway as there exists a group of people for whom these arguments have become a way of life. There are more important positive things to be done, like preparing for the implementation of the new translation and the very welcome changes it will bring to the liturgy.

In a few weeks I'll be giving several presentations to groups of church musicians on the topic of vernacular chant and the new missal translation. The three groups I have so far presented to have all been quite excited about the new translation and about the prospect of new musical settings. There are certainly a lot of questions and even some apprehension about what needs to be done. But I have yet to come across the kind of deep-seated "rejection" of the new translation that is becoming more deep-seated by the minute among those of a particular point of view across the blogosphere. I think my time can be better spent addressing those who want to come along rather than trying to convince those who would rather "fight than switch".

As I'm keeping busy enough with a new project at my parish (chanting the Introit at all Sunday Masses... we already chant the Communion Antiphon with verses) and composing some new settings of the Psalms for the Liturgical Year, I think I might use the free time that I'm not spending engaged in pointless discussion doing some work around the house that I've been neglecting or maybe even getting in some time to go fishing. There are a lot better ways to spend time these days...

Composing Chant

2011-03-04T20:19:00.000-08:00

Composing chant in the 21st century. It seems like an odd proposition, after all wasn't most of the chant we have today written between 600A.D and 900A.D? Shouldn't we be at least a little bit "beyond" such simple composition?

And yet there are composers today who have once again taken up the task of composing chant... not adapting Gregorian melodies to English (although that is being done also), but composing original chant melodies for English texts, mostly as a result of the new translation.

As a composer and arranger, the challenge fascinates me. As a pastoral musician, I bring to the task a few personal observations as well. One critique of much "contemporary" liturgical music is that it isn't "text centered", meaning that the melodic forms are driven more by harmonic/ rhythmic factors than by the characteristics of the text. This is a valid critique of music that is derivative from popular and theatrical forms, where melodies are often written with no specific text in mind, and words are fit to the notes rather than the other way around. While this is a successful way to write beautiful melodies, it is less successful in expressing the unique accents and meaning of specific texts.

A few months back, I began composing a setting of the new Mass Ordinary with the intention of having it "match the savour of the Gregorian melodic form" in it's expression of the text. But following my usual compositional method (composing the vocal parts simultaneous with the accompaniment), I found myself "leaning on the accompaniment" to support the melody at times, and at other times found myself shaping the melody to conform to the harmonic structure of the accompaniment. Both led to a decay of the relationship of the melody to the text, and I scrapped the project and restarted several times.

I have decided that contemporary composers, whether amateur or very skilled have to "re-learn" this type of composition. It isn't part of the musical vocabulary of our time, but it seems that may be changing, at least in the realm of sacred music. I remember when I began composition lessons (9th grade at the All-Newton Music School), I had to compose a series of compositional exercises beginning with a single line (monophonic) composition for one instrument, and gradually working my way through 2-part, 3-part, 4-part (different instruments), 4-part (quartet of like instruments) an so on up to small ensemble composition. The point was to discover the characteristics of composition in each of these situations, forcing me to get away from hiding behind heavy textures, as most of what I had written up to that time resembled something of a cross between Stravinsky and Debussy.

I can at least speak for myself in saying that it might be useful to do just such a "return to basics" in learning to compose sacred music that has the "savour of the Gregorian melodic form" and yet is thoroughly of this time. Before composing "chant-based" composition, I find myself needing to understand how to compose chant first.

And so I am doing just that... composing chant. No accompaniments or choral parts. Just single -line chant. I don't intend to actually use any of these compositions, although I think there may be a place for unaccompanied English chant in coming years. But so far, I've found the effort to be incredibly enlightening, and at the very least it develops a great sense of respect for those composers who composed the great chants of the Church.

I will post these "exercises" as I complete them, and I invite comment and criticism of them. I understand that there is an incredibly "high bar" for chant composition, but I think there is much to be gained from the effort.

Here is my first attempt:

EXERCISE I - (Mass I )

Are We Still Misunderstanding "Full, Conscious and Active Participation"?

2011-02-15T08:36:00.000-08:00

To look back over what has been done in the field of liturgical renewal in the years since the Council is, first, to see many reasons for giving heartfelt thanks and praise to the Most Holy Trinity for the marvelous awareness which has developed among the faithful of their role and responsibility in this priestly work of Christ and his Church. It is also to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis; as a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, and sometimes even grave scandal. After the experience of more than thirty years of liturgical renewal, we are well placed to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done, in order more confidently to plot our course into the future which God has in mind for his cherished People.

- Ad Limina Address of Pope John Paul II to Bishops of the United States On Active Participation in the Liturgy- October 1998

These words, from Pope John Paul II’s address to the Bishops of the United States in the Fall of 1998, marked the beginning of a process of re-examining how one of the most influential aspects of the liturgical reform had been carried out up to that time, and more importantly aspired to “plot our course” into the future by drawing on the experiences of the previous thirty years of liturgical practice and adopting an understanding of the Second Vatican Council’s liturgical directives, specifically the directives regarding the “full, conscious and active participation” of the faithful in the liturgy.

Most remarkable about this particular address was the admission that there was a misunderstanding of the nature of the liturgy in some cases. Of course, many critics of this statement would say that there was obviously a misunderstanding by Pope John Paul II of the scope of the problem if he actually thought that this was only true in some cases. A more accurate assessment might perhaps have said that there was a “misunderstanding of the nature of the liturgy” in many cases, perhaps even in most cases! But his statement was at least a starting point for the gradual change in how this particular facet of liturgical reform is regarded.

In advent of 2011, we will undertake the implementation of a new translation of the Roman Missal, a project that will greatly affect the liturgy of every parish in the English speaking world. This implementation will be preceded (hopefully!) by a period of catechesis and preparation, not only on the changes in the text, but also more generally on the topic of liturgical practice. The USCCB Committee on Divine Worship has asked that this period of catechesis be used to encourage a “renewal” of our liturgical worship, with an emphasis on “greater reverence and solemnity” in the rites. Such a renewal calls us to a vision of the liturgy that is often at conflict with the common practice at many parishes, a practice that has been guided to a large extent by the popular notion of “full, active and conscious participation”. And so as we enter into this period of catechesis and renewal, it may be a good point to seriously examine the question:

Are we still misunderstanding the concept of full, conscious and active participation in the liturgy?

Let’s consider a few things for the sake of discussion. First would be the context and history of the call for greater participation in the liturgy, a subject that is too broad to treat here with any real detail. It is maybe enough to consider that the call for such participation was not a new or radical concept by the time of the council – it had appeared already in detail long prior to the council, first in the Motu Proprio Tra le Sollecitudini (1903) of Pope Pius X, and most notably in Pius XII’s encyclical Mediator Dei (1947), the document from which much of the language in Sacrosanctum Concilium regarding participation was taken. One finds in the statements of Mediator Dei and continuing in Sacrosanctum Concilium, a common theme:

6. You are surely well aware that this Apostolic See has always made careful provision for the schooling of the people committed to its charge in the correct spirit and practice of the liturgy; and that it has been no less careful to insist that the sacred rites should be performed with due external dignity. In this connection We ourselves, in the course of our traditional address to the Lenten preachers of this gracious city of Rome in 1943, urged them warmly to exhort their respective hearers to more faithful participation in the eucharistic sacrifice. (MD #6)

8. Indeed, though we are sorely grieved to note, on the one hand, that there are places where the spirit, understanding or practice of the sacred liturgy is defective, or all but inexistent, We observe with considerable anxiety and some misgiving, that elsewhere certain enthusiasts, over-eager in their search for novelty, are straying beyond the path of sound doctrine and prudence…(MD #8)

80. It is, therefore, desirable, Venerable Brethren, that all the faithful should be aware that to participate in the eucharistic sacrifice is their chief duty and supreme dignity, and that not in an inert and negligent fashion, giving way to distractions and day-dreaming, but with such earnestness and concentration that they may be united as closely as possible with the High Priest, according to the Apostle, "Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus."[80] And together with Him and through Him let them make their oblation, and in union with Him let them offer up themselves. (MD #80)

82. The fact, however, that the faithful participate in the eucharistic sacrifice does not mean that they also are endowed with priestly power. It is very necessary that you make this quite clear to your flocks.(MD #82)

105. Therefore, they are to be praised who, with the idea of getting the Christian people to take part more easily and more fruitfully in the Mass, strive to make them familiar with the "Roman Missal," so that the faithful, united with the priest, may pray together in the very words and sentiments of the Church. They also are to be commended who strive to make the liturgy even in an external way a sacred act in which all who are present may share.(MD #105)

108. Many of the faithful are unable to use the Roman missal even though it is written in the vernacular; nor are all capable of understanding correctly the liturgical rites and formulas. So varied and diverse are men's talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services… (MD #108)

186. We earnestly exhort you, Venerable Brethren, that after errors and falsehoods have been removed, and anything that is contrary to truth or moderation has been condemned, you promote a deeper knowledge among the people of the sacred liturgy so that they more readily and easily follow the sacred rites and take part in them with true Christian dispositions (MD #186)

201. Above all, try with your constant zeal to have all the faithful attend the eucharistic sacrifice from which they may obtain abundant and salutary fruit; and carefully instruct them in all the legitimate ways we have described above so that they may devoutly participate in it. (MD #201)

202. By means of suitable sermons and particularly by periodic conferences and lectures, by special study weeks and the like, teach the Christian people carefully about the treasures of piety contained in the sacred liturgy so that they may be able to profit more abundantly by these supernatural gifts. (MD #202)

206. We cherish the hope that these Our exhortations will not only arouse the sluggish and recalcitrant to a deeper and more correct study of the liturgy, but also instill into their daily lives its supernatural spirit according to the words of the Apostle, "extinguish not the spirit." (MD #206)

11. But in order that the liturgy may be able to produce its full effects, it is necessary that the faithful come to it with proper dispositions, that their minds should be attuned to their voices, and that they should cooperate with divine grace lest they receive it in vain [28] . Pastors of souls must therefore realize that, when the liturgy is celebrated, something more is required than the mere observation of the laws governing valid and licit celebration; it is their duty also to ensure that the faithful take part fully aware of what they are doing, actively engaged in the rite, and enriched by its effects. (SC #11)

14. Mother Church earnestly desires that all the faithful should be led to that fully conscious, and active participation in liturgical celebrations which is demanded by the very nature of the liturgy. Such participation by the Christian people as "a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a redeemed people (1 Pet. 2:9; cf. 2:4-5), is their right and duty by reason of their baptism.

In the restoration and promotion of the sacred liturgy, this full and active participation by all the people is the aim to be considered before all else; for it is the primary and indispensable source from which the faithful are to derive the true Christian spirit; and therefore pastors of souls must zealously strive to achieve it, by means of the necessary instruction, in all their pastoral work.

Yet it would be futile to entertain any hopes of realizing this unless the pastors themselves, in the first place, become thoroughly imbued with the spirit and power of the liturgy, and undertake to give instruction about it. A prime need, therefore, is that attention be directed, first of all, to the liturgical instruction of the clergy (SC # 14)

19. With zeal and patience, pastors of souls must promote the liturgical instruction of the faithful, and also their active participation in the liturgy both internally and externally, taking into account their age and condition, their way of life, and standard of religious culture. By so doing, pastors will be fulfilling one of the chief duties of a faithful dispenser of the mysteries of God; and in this matter they must lead their flock not only in word but also by example. (SC # 19)

Coming from Mediator Dei, although most certainly from earlier times as well, and then more clearly elucidated in SC is the connection between the education and instruction of the faithful and their full and active participation. The connection is such that one cannot exist without the other, and in fact, it is emphasized throughout both documents that the participation of the faithful in the liturgy without proper instruction leads to a misunderstanding of the nature of the liturgy. It is the reality of this connection that urged Pope John Paul II to then say

“It is also important to realize that not all changes have always and everywhere been accompanied by the necessary explanation and catechesis; as a result, in some cases there has been a misunderstanding of the very nature of the liturgy, leading to abuses, polarization, and sometimes even grave scandal.”

This is a central point to understand when considering the complete picture of FCAP – the primary and perhaps most important aspect of it is the education of the faithful in liturgy so that they can be properly disposed to participate interiorly. As was observed by Pope John Paul II, this aspect was often overlooked and as such, the result had been a failure of the project as a whole.

A second consideration, and perhaps one that is more argumentative than the first, is whether full, conscious and active participation as it has come to be understood is a goal that is realistically possible within the constraints of the liturgical form. Even Pius XII went so far as to say “So varied and diverse are men's talents and characters that it is impossible for all to be moved and attracted to the same extent by community prayers, hymns and liturgical services”. In other words, given the diversity in education, disposition and interest of the faithful, is it realistic to expect that everyone participate fully and enthusiastically?

A related question is whether the intention had been to change the faithful through education so that they could come to understand and participate in the liturgy, or to change the liturgy to the extent that it could come to be understood within the limits of the possible education of the faithful. These are two very different approaches with very different and meaningful consequences. While the actual reforms of the council seemed to be proposing the former concept, the practice adopted since the council has been to begrudgingly adopt the latter as a replacement for inadequate catechesis. As the emphasis on catechesis continued to wane, the adaptation of the liturgy to an ever lower level seemed to have prevailed with the ultimate consequence being the replacement of the concept of interior participation through understanding with an almost exclusive prevalence of exterior participation through physical action.

As such, full, conscious and active participation came to be exclusively understood as the faithful processing, singing, serving, reading, distributing, or speaking rather than understanding why the Priest processes, why the choir sings, why the deacon serves, why the Priest distributes, or why the lector speaks. It came to be seen as less important that the faithful be disposed to receive the Word of God than it was that everyone be offered the opportunity to physically take part in reading the Word of God. And in most cases, the all important task of educating the faithful, specifically indicated as the primary duty of the clergy, had been handed off to the laity as yet another form of “participation”.

And so this was the understanding of full conscious and active participation when Pope John Paul II spoke to the Bishops of the United States in October of 1998. The goal of instructing the faithful in the proper understanding of the texts and actions of the liturgy to lead them to that “full, active and conscious” interior participation had been abandoned, replaced by a sort of reversal in which it is hoped that greater physical involvement by the laity, exterior participation, would somehow lead to a greater understanding of the liturgical texts and actions on an intellectual level. Clearly, Pope John Paul II believed that such an understanding of participation in the liturgy had not only failed in achieving such a goal, but had actually led to “abuses, polarization, and sometimes even grave scandal”. Is it any wonder that he thought it time to “assess both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done, in order more confidently to plot our course into the future which God has in mind for his cherished People.”?

And so now, as we approach the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal this next Advent, there may be no better time to undertake such an assessment. The introduction of the new texts offers an opportunity for teaching…not only the words of the new texts, but also the liturgical context in which they are set. It is a singular opportunity to re-introduce the distinct roles of the Priest, the Faithful (assembly) and the Choir in the liturgy – encouraging each to exercise those parts proper to them. It is an opportunity to instruct the faithful in the distinction between interior and exterior participation and how the liturgy requires each at different times. It is an opportunity to teach the faithful about the proper role of Sacred music in the liturgy, challenging the popular-music mentality that has dominated liturgical music practice for more than 50 years. It is an opportunity to strengthen the relationship between liturgical art and worship, encouraging that re-birth of artistic endeavor that Pope John Paul II called for in his 2000 Letter to Artists and which was echoed by Pope Benedict XVI in his address to artists in November of 2009.

Are we still misunderstanding full, conscious and active participation? It seems that in many cases the answer is “yes”. And yet, with the introduction of the new translation we are being given the opportunity to “plot our course into the future” and work towards an authentic realization of participation in the liturgy. It will be hard work no doubt, and it would certainly be easier to just continue along the path of physical “busy-ness” in the liturgy, avoiding the deeper understanding of the relationship between God and ourselves that the liturgy requires and constantly calls us to experience. In many places, that easier path will probably be chosen and the opportunity to grow in faith and knowledge will be squandered. But other places will take the opportunity to do the hard work and in doing so will become models for the Church going forward.

And so, returning to the words of Pope John Paul II in 1998:

After the experience of more than thirty years of liturgical renewal, we are well placed to assess both the strengths and weaknesses of what has been done, in order more confidently to plot our course into the future which God has in mind for his cherished People.

We are most definitely well placed… but are we willing to plot that course into the future that God has in mind, or will we continue along a path of our own making?

So What's Wrong With the New Translation?

2011-02-11T12:17:00.000-08:00

A new "low bar" has been set in Academia's seemingly endless quest to find new modes of criticism by which to try and bring down the new translation of the Roman Missal.

An "essay" by Professor Susan Roll

I hesitate to post this for a number of reasons, but sometimes it's necessary to show the opposition for what it is.

UPDATE:

All of the comments at Pray Tell (including one of mine) that suggested that Ms. Roll's "article" was in any way Anti-Catholic or Homophobic have been removed.

UPDATE II:

It seems the Prof. Roll's "article" has been excised from history... no longer posted and all links, comments, backlinks, etc. have been removed. I guess that some roads are best not gone down!

FINAL UPDATE:

The essay by Prof. Roll has been preserved online for all posterity. CLICK HERE

A New Motu Proprio?

2011-02-10T07:34:00.000-08:00

The news is well known by now.

There will be a Motu Proprio issued (soon) that will transfer the jurisdiction over certain types of cases involving particular marriages and their validity from the CDW to the Rota.

That's the factual part of the news.

Then comes the speculation about why... and this is where one needs a rather large grain of salt on hand. The "informed sources" say that the CDW will be devoted completely to the issue of liturgical reform...the Reform of the Reform.... The New Liturgical Movement....The Hermeneutic of Continuity....whatever else it has been called. This is certainly a possibility and would fit in with several bits of information that have come out over the past year, particularly the rumored formation of a distinct emphasis within the CDW on Sacred Music and Art. It was never made clear if this would be an actual "office" or "dicastery" or whatever... but if that was true, then the rumors about the CDW's new role would make sense too. Such a group within the CDW would be necessary if the single purpose of the CDW were to be liturgical reform.

But this is speculation, not any kind of fact. The best we can do is wait and see what the Motu Proprio says. And even then...and even IF the CDW is so tasked, the real question is not what their new assignment is, but rather what their first actions in regard to that new assignment are.

It needs to be an out-of-the-park homerun.

Latin or Vernacular: Which Way is Forward?

2011-02-07T12:00:00.000-08:00

Over the next 3 months, I have at least 4 different presentations on the topic of liturgical chant and its connection to the new translation. These are presentations that I am more than happy to have to work on, as I think back to only 4 or 5 years ago. Would I have thought then that I would be talking to groups of Music Directors, Cantors and Clergy about how to best incorporate chant in our regular parish liturgies? Not because it is a pet project of mine, or because it happens to be what is called for by the music documents of our Church (including the most recent USCCB document on music, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship).

No, I’m speaking on this subject because it is what is now expected of us as church musicians concurrent with the implementation of the new translation. I remember thinking how nice it would be if that were ever to happen, having the Church expect us to use chant at Mass, but I certainly don’t remember expecting it to happen so soon.

But times change, and with them our expectations must change also.

Ever since the unhappy coincidence of an increasing use of vernacular at Mass and the decreasing use of Gregorian chant in the liturgy going back to a number of years prior to Vatican II, there has been the persistent and mistaken perception that Gregorian chant was “done away with” or even “banned” by the documents of Vatican II. This impression is closely related to the also mistaken notion that Latin was “banned” by the Council, an idea that is easily refuted by an even cursory reading of Sacrosanctum Concilium. Both of these ideas have begun to run their course with the increased awareness of the liturgical music of the Church and the heritage of Latin in the liturgy. There is perhaps no better example of this awareness than the new translation of the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal and the musical settings that have been composed as an integral part of that translation.

But the new translation and the chants that accompany it also raise some questions about the eventual direction that we are headed in. Not too many years ago, Gregorian chant meant specifically Latin chant, and there is a not small number of advocates out there who are hesitant to call these new vernacular chants Gregorian chant, preferring instead the more generic term “liturgical chant” or just plain “chant”. The English language settings of the Ordinary are adaptations of actual Gregorian melodies - the Kyrie from Mass XVI, the Gloria from Mass XV, the Credo III, the Sanctus and Agnus Dei from Mass XVIII. Many of these choices might seem obvious as they are the most well known settings from the Gregorian repertoire, but the choice of these particular melodies might be for another less obvious reason.

We find in Sacrosanctum Concilium the following oft-quoted passage:

“Steps should be taken enabling the faithful to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them” (SC, no. 54).

And it is this passage that is referenced in the 2006 document Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship when it calls for the following:

74.The Second Vatican Council directed that the faithful be able to sing parts of the
Ordinary of the Mass together in Latin.70 In many worshiping communities in the United States, fulfilling this directive will mean introducing Latin chant to worshipers who perhaps have not sung it before. While prudence, pastoral sensitivity, and reasonable time for progress are encouraged to achieve this end, every effort in this regard is laudable and highly encouraged.
75. Each worshiping community in the United States, including all age groups and all
ethnic groups, should, at a minimum, learn Kyrie XVI, Sanctus XVIII, and Agnus Dei XVIII…(SttL, #74-75)

And so, leading up to 2006 the objective was to pursue the singing of the Ordinary in Latin using the Gregorian settings indicated above. But then in 2008 or so, rumors began circulating that ICEL was busy working on a set of English-language chants to accompany the new (and somewhat delayed) translation of the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal, the so-called “ICEL Chants” which then began making their way around the internet. It was not that big of a surprise then that the settings used for the English language chants were exactly those that were indicated in Sing to the Lord as being those which were to be eventually sung in Latin.

What exactly is the final objective then? Is it to preserve the use of chant, whether in English or Latin? Is it to preserve the use of Latin through the medium of chant? There is another detail that might give a clue to the answer.

The new missal, when published, will include these English language chants for certain. But it remains to be seen whether the Latin originals will also be included as an alternative. The set that is posted online at the ICEL site includes the Latin versions of the Gloria, Sanctus and Agnus Dei as alternative versions to the English settings. Will these be included in the actual Missal? Will they be included in commercially published worship booklets? If not, then why were they offered as alternates in the ICEL project?

It seems to me that the eventual objective is to strive for the ideal set forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium – “to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass belonging to them”. But the obstacles to that ideal have been great, and an effort to re-introduce the sound of chant back into the liturgy would be a first step in overcoming perhaps the biggest obstacle of all.

The combination of chant and Latin is a difficult sell in many places, but how about chant in English? That easily puts to rest the argument about understanding the meaning of what is being sung, leaving only an objection to the musical style of chant itself, a less successful argument to be sure. The new translation makes necessary the learning of all new settings anyway, and the ICEL chant settings then become one setting among many. But they also have an advantage…they are the first settings to be approved, and they are required to be included in the Missal itself, and as the primary setting in all commercially published music booklets.

And so we can foresee a situation in the very near future where chant, albeit in English, will be heard for the first time in a long time in many parishes in the English speaking world. And that’s the first step. Many Catholics, including many young Catholics, will be learning the traditional Gregorian melodies of these parts of the Mass. And then there is the considerable and growing body of English language chant settings being newly composed and distributed online, many of them at no cost. These will begin to be heard in many parishes as well. How difficult would it be, from that point, to introduce the Latin settings of chant?

I’m curious to know whether the Latin alternates will be included in the Missal along with the English settings as that would be a very telling sign about the direction we are heading. If anyone out there knows the answer to that question, I’d like to know. Otherwise I’ll have to wait until October for our new Missal to arrive.

LITURGICAL MYTHBUSTERS: Singing the Mass Takes Too Much Time

2011-01-31T07:40:00.000-08:00

With the implementation of the new translation of the Roman Missal, there has been a call for a renewed emphasis on the singing of the Mass, particularly the dialogues between the Priest and the assembly. The USCCB guidelines for music in the liturgy, Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship says the following about the importance of singing the dialogues at Mass:

Among the parts to be sung, preference should be given “especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the lector, with the people responding, or by the priest and people together.”90 This includes dialogues such as "God, come to my assistance - Lord make haste to help me" in the Office, or "The Lord be with you - And also with you" in the Mass. The dialogues of the Liturgy are fundamental because they “are not simply outward signs of communal celebration but foster and bring about communion between priest and people.”91 By their nature, they are short and uncomplicated and easily invite active participation by the entire assembly. Every effort should therefore be made to introduce or strengthen as a normative practice the singing of the dialogues between the priest, deacon, or lector and the people. Even the priest with very limited singing ability is capable of chanting The Lord be with you on a single pitch. (SttL #115a)

Accompanying the new translation of the Roman Missal are new chanted settings of all of these dialogues (as well as all other parts of the Mass). It is clearly the intention that with the implementation of the New Translation, there is to be also an implementation of the practice of singing these dialogues. This simple addition to the liturgy is perhaps the easiest and most effective step towards "full, active and conscious participation" that can be taken at any parish. It should be a liturgical "no brainer"...

I say "should be" because there are always those persistent myths surrounding things liturgical, and the practice of singing the dialogues at Mass is certainly no exception. Very often the objection is raised that Fr. So-and-So "can't carry a tune in a bucket", or some other variation of this complaint. But the dialogues aren't "tunes"... they are, for the most part, single pitches on which the text is spoken. And SttL even addressed this point in saying "even the priest with very limited singing ability is capable of chanting The Lord be with you on a single pitch." I have to agree with them here... this is really an excuse rather than a reason.

Which brings me to the topic of this post and the other frequently heard objection:

"Singing the dialogues takes way too much time."

Well, we do have to consider how long Mass takes... especially in parishes with a full Mass schedule on Sunday morning, when issues of parking lot politics come into play. We certainly don't want to routinely institute practices at Mass that will extend the Mass time by 10 or 15 minutes. That would be unwise and would likely elicit complaints from the parishioners, and justifiably so.

But consider also that many parishes regularly introduce features into the Mass that might extend the time. At more than a few parishes, it's customary to read announcements from the podium after communion. Of course, that would probably only add perhaps a minute, maybe two minutes, so it's not really a big deal. And it's an ubiquitous feature in many parishes across the country for the celebrant to "take a few moments" before the closing prayer to thank the servers, the Extraordinary Ministers, maybe call for a round of applause for the Choir and Cantors... but again, that takes maybe a minute or two depending on the number of "Thank You's" and the extent of the applause. And then there are various times set aside for blessing children or recognizing visitors to the parish...but none of these really takes more than maybe a couple of minutes. Nothing like the extra time it takes to sing the Mass rather than just speaking the texts.

But are we being maybe a little bit hasty in this assessment? It does take time to sing those dialogues...but it also takes time to speak them. And you do have to either speak them or sing them... it's not as though they are omitted if they aren't sung. So how much extra time does it take to sing the dialogues as we are encouraged to do rather than speak them?

There's an easy way to find out.

I recorded the dialogues (from the new translation) that would ordinarily be sung at Mass -

Introduction to Mass
Collect
Orate Fratres
Preface Dialogue
Preface
Our Father with Introduction
Deliver Us Lord…
For The Kingdom…
Dismissal

I recorded them spoken, and then the same texts sung using the notation indicated in the new missal translation.

MASS DIALOGUES - SPOKEN TEXT

MASS DIALOGUES- SUNG TEXTS

And so how much longer would Mass take if you sung ALL of these dialogues? I asked a few people this past weekend, including two Priests, and got quite a range of responses. One person guessed that it would probably add about 10 minutes to Mass. One of the Priests guessed that it would only add about 7 or 8 minutes to Mass. Another said that it would only add about 5 minutes or so to Mass...

But when you actually compare the time that it takes to speak and sing the same texts, we get a very different answer. (click below for larger image)

In reality, it would only add about 1:18 - a minute and eighteen seconds - onto the Mass time! And that would be if we sang ALL of the dialogues... and the Lord's Prayer! That's less time than it takes to make a few announcements, or thank a couple of servers at the end of Mass. And in realistic terms, we're talking about the difference between ending Mass at 11:58 or ending Mass at 11:59. That doesn't exactly seem like an unreasonable extension of the Mass time given the importance that has been attached to the practice of singing the dialogues.

So when the issue of singing the dialogues comes up as you begin preparations for the new translation, and the inevitable voice is raised in objection - "that takes way too much time during Mass", you can point out that it takes probably 3 times longer to sing the closing hymn... and so perhaps we should discuss cutting that out first.

Musica Sacra Florida Conference - April 1&2, 2011

2011-01-25T11:20:00.000-08:00

I will be presenting a breakout session at the 3rd Annual Musica Sacra Florida Gregorian Chant Conference, sponsored by the Florida Chapter of the Church Music Association of America in conjunction with the Department of Music, Ave Maria University, Ave Maria, Florida on April 1st & 2nd.

Liturgical Chant and the New Translation

Jeffrey A. Herbert
Director of Music
Church of the Incarnation
Sarasota FL

“The new translation of the Third Edition of the Roman Missal will begin use in parishes across the English‐speaking world in Advent of 2011. As this date approaches, two questions become relevant –

“In what ways can liturgical chant be used as a tool to introduce the new translation to the faithful?”

“How does the new translation call for a greater use of chant in the liturgy going forward?”

Answers to these two questions will be explored in the context of the Church’s musical tradition of Gregorian chant, the ICEL chants, and the increasing availability of online resources.

This is a topic I have spoken on a number of times in different venues. I was quite happy to be asked to give this particular session at this conference. I can't really stress enough how important this issue is at this time... with the implementation of the new translation coming in less than a year now it is time to begin the transformation of our liturgical music that has been called for, first by Pope John Paul II in his Chirograph on Sacred Music, and then again in Pope Benedict's Apostolic Exhortation Sacramentum Caritatis (and in numerous other addresses, writings and letters before and since that time) and by the Bishops of the United Sates in Sing to the Lord: Music in Divine Worship.

I am going to try to address the practical resources and suggestions for how to do this, in a normal parish with average choir members. I'm also going to try and address this convergence of events that makes this the time. I hope that you will be able to join us at the conference. I will post the link to the registration and information site when it is put online. In the meantime...put the date on your calendar!

An Intriguing Detail in the Order of Mass

2011-01-24T07:20:00.000-08:00

Reading through the Order of Mass (New Translation), there are a few interesting details compared to the current version. Take for example the instruction to begin Mass...

Current Version:After the people have assembled, an opening song or entrance antiphon is sung or recited as the priest and the ministers enter the church and process to the altar; after reverencing the altar (sometimes also using incense), they go to their chairs

New Version:When the people are gathered, the Priest approaches the altar with the ministers while the Entrance Chant is sung.
When he has arrived at the altar, after making a profound bow with the ministers, the Priest venerates the altar with a kiss and, if appropriate, incenses the cross and the altar. Then, with the ministers, he goes to the chair.
When the Entrance Chant is concluded, the Priest and the faithful, standing, sign themselves with the Sign of the Cross, while the Priest, facing the people, says.....

Now, maybe it's just a detail... but maybe not. Notice that there is no longer any mention of an 'opening song", but rather the Entrance Chant... and it is capitalized. And it's mentioned twice, once when it starts, and again indicating when it ends. That seems quite specific, indicating that the Entrance Chant (not something else) is to be sung at this point.

And the specificity just gets greater when it comes to the Offertory...

Current Version: The Offertory Antiphon may be sung as the gifts are brought to the altar

Now, this is one of those instructions that seems to say one thing, but could actually mean just about whatever the reader would like. Certainly, the Antiphon may be sung, but there's nothing saying that something else can't be sung here. This confusion is certainly cleared up in the new version...

New Version: When all this has been done, the Offertory Chant begins. Meanwhile, the ministers place the corporal, the purificator, the chalice, the pall, and the Missal on the altar.

22. It is desirable that the faithful express their participation by making an offering, bringing forward bread and wine for the celebration of the Eucharist and perhaps other gifts to relieve the needs of the Church and of the poor.

(and then a little later)

Then he places the paten with the bread on the corporal.
If, however, the Offertory Chant is not sung, the Priest may speak these words aloud; at the end, the people may acclaim:
Blessed be God for ever.

(and a little later still...)

Then he places the chalice on the corporal.
If, however, the Offertory Chant is not sung, the Priest may speak these words aloud; at the end, the people may acclaim:
Blessed be God for ever.

Three times the Offertory Chant (again, capitalized... this is a specific term, a "thing", the actual Offertory Chant, not something else sung during the offertory) is identified, either to be sung or NOT to be sung. No mention anywhere of "...or some other song". The intention here is clear. Either the Offertory Chant is sung, or it isn't sung. There is no option specified for something else to be sung. Certainly that option exists, doesn't it? Hmm...

But it is the instruction at communion that is the most telling....

Current Version: No Instruction

Now, we all know that in the absence of an instruction, one is free to make up any instruction that one might wish. And that has certainly been the case when it comes to communion. But what does the new version say?

New Version:em>While the Priest is receiving the Body of Christ, the Communion Chant begins.

So far, this is like the previous two examples. Clear and unequivocal... the Communion Chant (capitalized) begins at this point. No mention of something else going on here. But it is the final instruction at this point that really makes the point I think...

Then the Priest may return to the chair. If appropriate, a sacred silence may be observed for a while, or a psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn may be sung.

I say "WOW", and here's why. At this point it becomes clear that Entrance Chant, Offertory Chant and Communion Chant are not generic terms.... there are such things as psalms and canticles of praise and even... gasp HYMNS!! They specify them for this point in the Mass... but NOT at the entrance, offertory of communion processions... at those points they specify other things... the Chants appropriate to those processions!

I think there is something going on here... or there WILL BE something going on here that we don't yet know about. Just as the rather odd statements and instructions in Sing to the Lord make a lot more sense in light of what we now know about the new translation and liturgical developments since 2006, I wonder what may occur in the near future that will make these instructions necessary....

Kinda makes one think a little!

Music Resources for the New Translation of the Roman Missal

2011-01-24T05:57:00.000-08:00

I would like to pass on the link to my website for "Music Resources for the New Translation of the Roman Missal"

http://jeffreyssacredmusicchantpage.blogspot.com/2009/01/resources-for-sing-to-lord.html

A couple of notes on this page, which I hope will grow into a resource page for a lot of what is out there in the way of chant (Latin and English) and other good quality, FREE sacred music.

First, I don't want to be accused of taking other people's material, but if it is posted online and available for download at no cost, I'm going to assume that it is OK to link to that material as a resource. If that isn't the case, and you find your material on my site and would like me to not promote it or link to it... just let me know and I will be happy to remove it.

Second, if you have materials online and you would like me to link to them, please let me know and I will be happy to do so. I strongly believe that the more online, FREE resources there are, the better quality material there will be produced in the future. A non-monopolistic marketplace is an amazing thing.

Third, you may notice that the original title of the webpage was "Resources for Sing to the Lord". Although the project has expanded way beyond that in the past few years, I think this is an appropriate title. Looking back at SttL knowing what we now know (and what we DIDN'T know in 2006), it becomes obvious that SttL was intended as a document to implement the musical vision presented to us in the new translation .... expanded use of chant, sung dialogues, increased emphasis on sung Propers... and the list goes on of concepts set forth in SttL that made little sense at the time, but which make lots of sense in light of the new translation. So I'm keeping the title, at least as far as the address is concerned!

I hope that you will visit (and return!) to this page frequently and avail yourselves and your parish of the opportunity to have great, beautiful music at Mass!

We Sang A New Translation and... nobody noticed?

2011-01-20T13:50:00.000-08:00

Hmm... This over at Jerry Galipeau's "Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray" blog:

There have been some great comments posted recently, comments from musicians like Kevin Keil. These musicians are beginning to implement the new texts, set to new and revised musical settings, now, in order to prepare their communities gradually for the upcoming change. I found Kevin's comments quite interesting:

"With all the variations of texts currently used in our present repertoire, no one noticed that it was a new translation; just another variation of the Gloria. Interesting."

As I have said before, I think the transition will be the easiest for the people in the pews; much more challenging for bishops and priests.

In Jerry's defense, yes, he has indeed said (well, for the past half year or so...) that the people in the pews will have less trouble. Even so, I still sense that he is uneasy that there is going to be all kinds of opposition, complaints and the such.

But... and here's my reason for posting this... I have been excoriated recently by an anonymous commenter (well, they believe themselves to be anonymous at least... :) ) who recently said the following:

(I had said)"The original post at PT that spurred this article was so transparently made from the point of view of a discouraged progressive who sees the time of the NewChurch coming to an end, wishing with all her strength that her unlikely predictions (of massive opposition to the new translation) might come true."

(the anon commenter then said) Baloney,

You've been chanting the same neum here there and on every blog for months now, and it's just not true, though it would certainly make it easier for you to deal with the incompetence and politics that produced the final, far inferior final version if it were true. So keep chanting.

All together now in Mode 1: "A-at le-ee-east we have a new-ew transla-a-tion now ..."

Now, that comment refers to another article at Pray Tell by an author who was predicting doom and gloom and insurrection by the faithful as soon as they heard the new translation. There would be pestilence and famine... riots and massive hordes leaving the church in rebellion.

But now we have Kevin Keil who (well, perhaps slighly under the radar...) introduces the Gloria... the most changed text for the faithful in the new translation... and.... NOBODY EVEN NOTICES THAT IT IS A NEW TRANSLATION.

I expect that this will be the reaction in most places.

Back to our regularly scheduled programming....

CHANT: "Just Do It"

2011-01-14T08:21:00.000-08:00

This is the year, this is the time.

The past 10 years or so have gradually and inevitably led us to this point, a point where the Church's Chant tradition has once again come to the forefront, as it has throughout history following periods of rejection, disuse and insurgency by popular and/ or secular forces from without and within. And yet the church always resists that insurgency and re-asserts tradition.

Summorum Pontificum
The Papal Masses
Sacramentum Caritatis
Anglicanorum Coetibus
The New Translation
The New Evangelization

And Chant......

Now is the time. JUST DO IT!

Beginning today, The Authentic Update will be dedicated to providing resources and links to online resources for "Just Doing" chant in your parish setting. Whether it's the Ordinary Chants of the New Translation, or Proper Chants for your Choir. Whether in Latin or English (or as I've seen recently, in Spanish!), chant needs to be brought into the liturgy NOW if we are to realize the vision of the Second Vatican Council when it said:

“Gregorian chant holds pride of place because it is proper to the Roman Liturgy” (GIRM 41)

and..

“the Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as especially suited to the Roman liturgy; therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.” (SC 116)

We can't keep kidding ourselves and pushing this under the rug because implementing chant in a parish is "difficult" or "divisive". It's neither, and it is easier now than ever. This doesn't mean throwing the hymnals in the dumpster and having a Schola sing the entire liturgy in Latin. It DOES mean presenting chant in the liturgy as it was meant to be and incorporating other musical forms when appropriate. It means taking your job as a Music Director or musician seriously enough to be willing to do some work and provide education and leadership in your parish.

I will do what I can this year here at Authentic Update to assist Music Directors, musicians or just concerned Catholics in this effort. You may reply or contact me here and I will do my best to help when needed.

May God Bless Your Efforts!

Deo Gratias...

Verbum Domini on Music

2010-11-11T11:55:00.000-08:00

Well, here it is more than a month since my last post, and it ends up being on the same subject! What's strange is that now we find out that Fr. Lang was speaking just a few days after the release of Benedict's most recent Apostolic Exhortation, Verbum Domini, which had been released on September 30th for publication. And we find that in this document, once again the topic of the relationship between scripture and music is addressed in a way that is continuous with all of what has been said before it:

70. As part of the enhancement of the word of God in the liturgy, attention should also be paid to the use of song at the times called for by the particular rite. Preference should be given to songs which are of clear biblical inspiration and which express, through the harmony of music and words, the beauty of God’s word. We would do well to make the most of those songs handed down to us by the Church’s tradition which respect this criterion. I think in particular of the importance of Gregorian chant. (Verbum Domini, par.70)

I have been saying for quite a while that there is bound to be another document along the lines of Tra le sollecitudini sometime soon, whether from Benedict XVI or his successor. I have yet to see a document extolling the virtues of contemporary liturgical music, or even very much mention of it at all in official circles. One might assume that the most recent pontiffs have had little exposure to it and as such have little urgency to address it. But the frequent and continuous stream of statements such as these by Benedict and those immediately around him are leading me to conclude that they have become very aware of the problems in contemporary liturgical music. With awareness comes a greater likelihood of action. We'll have to wait and see... maybe it will be brought up in the special session on liturgy with the Cardinals later this November? Who knows...

An Interesting Point of View

2010-10-08T10:36:00.000-07:00

.
The following article appeared on October 7th in a number of Catholic publications. I find it interesting that there have been quite a few lectures, speeches and articles making this same point recently, all by prominent individuals. What exactly might be the reason for wanting to make the point that Chant is the ideal of Catholic liturgical music and should serve as the model in any renewal of Sacred music?

>>>>

Chant Will Renew Sacred Music, Says Vatican Aide
-Notes Its Link to Liturgical Texts

ROME, OCT. 7, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Sacred music cannot be limited to Gregorian chant, but it is chant that contains the key to renew liturgical song, according to a consultor for the Office of Liturgical Celebrations of the Supreme Pontiff.
Father Uwe Michael Lang, also an official of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Sacraments, made this observation Wednesday at a lecture at l'Accademia Urbana delle Arti in Rome.

Father Lang pointed to the 1749 encyclical "Annus Qui" by Pope Benedict XIV as the "most important papal pronouncement on sacred music" prior to Pope St. Pius X's "Tra Le Sollecitudini."

The 18th century encyclical "proposes the important criteria of sacred music that are valid beyond the limits of their historical context and resound also in our time," the priest said.

Father Lang explained that the encyclical presents plainsong as normative for the Roman liturgy "while it approves unaccompanied polyphony and also permits orchestral music, though with certain conditions, in divine worship."

He said this position of the Church is reflected in the constitution of sacred liturgy from the Second Vatican Council, which "exalts Gregorian chant as the 'proper' music of the Roman liturgy."

"The pre-eminence of chant," Father Lang further recalled, "was confirmed by Benedict XVI in his 2007 post-synodal apostolic exhortation 'Sacramentum Caritatis.'"
Father Lang proposed that the value of Gregorian chant is "its profound relationship with the liturgical text, to which it gives musical form."

"'Annus Qui' requests explicitly the integrity and intelligibility of the texts that are sung in the Mass and in the Divine Office," the priest affirmed. "This concern was already debated in Trent, but not included in the council's official documents."
He added that though "sacred music cannot be limited exclusively to Gregorian chant, it has in itself, however, the keys for a true renewal of sacred music."

>>>>

And so, as is pointed out by Fr. Lang, Gregorian chant has always been the ideal form of Catholic liturgical music, and that position was strongly reinforced by the Second Vatican Council and has been re-iterated by all Popes since that time and there has been no document or proclamation to the contrary. But we all know what the status quo is, so why come out and say this again at this time? And why go as far back as “Annus Qui”… a prominent document from a previous Pope Benedict?

And why make the point that Annus Qui proposes the important criteria of sacred music that are valid beyond the limits of their historical context and resound also in our time. Note that he doesn’t say that “Annus Qui” proposed these criteria… he says that the document proposes these criteria. This may be nitpicking to an extent, but I think there is a difference in point of view when one speaks about documents of the Church. When one generally sees older documents as outdated and irrelevant, those documents claimed… or stated… or proposed specific ideas that are no longer relevant. They are past tense… no longer valid. But when one accepts the validity of a past document as relevant in our own day, that documents claims… or states… or proposes its ideas to us still, and they are as relevant now as in the past.

This isn’t to say that there aren’t documents and teachings of the church that are no longer valid, but when that is the case, those documents or teachings are abrogated, such as Ecclesia Dei Afflicta was abrogated by Summorum Pontificum. That abrogation is noted in the new document and it is specifically spelled out that the provisions of the former document are no longer in force. But in the case of Annus Qui, it’s provisions have been re-iterated and strengthened, first by Pope Pius X in Tra le sollecitudini, and then again more comprehensively and forcefully through the documents of the Second Vatican Council, again in 2000 by Pope John Paul in his Chirograph on Sacred Music, and most recently by Pope Benedict in Sacramentum Caritatis. Rather than being abrogated, it is clear that the criteria and concerns so eloquently and clearly laid out in Annus Qui have been re-iterated and reinforced from the 18th century up to the present day without exception.

And what are those criteria and concerns laid out in Annus Qui? What were the reasons given for the reform of Sacred Music by Pope Benedict XIV?

•Sacred Music must be distinct from popular (theatrical or profane) music.

•Instrumental music poses the danger of profanation by association with popular or theatrical music. Recent practice and some local customs which encourage the use of popular instruments and singing styles within the Church are to be eliminated.

•When instruments oppress and bury the voices of the choir, and obscure the meaning of words, then the use of the instruments does not achieve the desired purpose, they becomes useless and indeed remain forbidden and prohibited.

•Sacred Music is first and foremost a proclamation of text, and all musical settings must derive from the text and not vice-versa as is the case in popular or theatre music.

•The liturgy must be primarily sung… particularly the words of the prophets, the apostles, or Epistle, of the Creed, the Preface or action of thanksgiving and prayer of the Lord. Practices or teachings that seek to reduce the singing of these parts of the Mass are to be eliminated.

•The distinction between the musical forms of the Office and the musical forms of the Mass are to be observed in recognition of the distinction between the prayer of the office and the Sacrifice of the Mass. To one belongs hymnody and strophic singing, to the other belongs the riches of the chant and polyphony. In both, the texts must be clearly proclaimed and not obscured by the musical forms or instruments.

•The incorporation of popular singing styles and theatrical forms excites the listener and distracts from the sacredness of the Mass, leading the minds of the listener away from the mystery to a place where it remains in the common world.

Other than the occasional references to “bawdy” music and a strong underlying assumption in this document that the reader is familiar with liturgical practices from the time of Charlemagne onwards, this could have been written this year by Benedict XVI rather than in 1749 by Benedict XIV! The concerns are very much the same.

And so I ask again… Why the sudden outpouring of references to these former documents and their relevance today by prominent figures from the Church’s hierarchy? I mean… it’s not like we have the same problems...uhhmmm...OK...Maybe we should think about this a bit.

A Lesson Learned

2010-10-08T08:18:00.000-07:00

I’d like to pick up where I left off with my last posting and take a look at another aspect of how the New Translation will affect the direction of Catholic liturgical music, perhaps for many years to come. I noted in my last post how there exists a sort of “soft mandate” that publishers include the ICEL-USCCB produced chant settings of the Mass Ordinary in all published worship materials after the implementation of the New Translation in November of 2011. As it is currently understood, other settings will be included, but none have yet received approval, and even once approved, they will have to be included as secondary settings since the ICEL-USCCB chant settings must be the setting presented in the Order of Mass. This alone will have some considerable consequences for how publishers promote and present their own (copyrighted) settings in published resources. But there is also another aspect of the implementation that may have a much more profound impact on liturgical music, which up to now has been dominated by “The Big Three” (OCP, GIA and WLP) publishers. History can be a good teacher in this case.

The past 10 years has seen the rapid decline of print media. Newspapers and magazines have watched their circulations reduced to non-sustainable levels, requiring mergers, buyouts and large scale layoffs in the fortunate situations – bankruptcies and closed doors in the less fortunate, and lots of lamenting and hand-wringing all around. The lamenting and hand-wringing seems disingenuous though, because the cause is clear and well known: The Internet and the diversity of views that it permits. No longer did the consumer of news and information have to accept what was given by the established media. With the internet anyone can be a reporter and compete with the once dominant publishers and their immense distribution networks. The individual who used to type their own “pamphlets” and hand them out on a corner downtown can now hand them out to the entire world, updating them every day, every hour, every minute if necessary! And the consumer who enters a topic in a search engine finds that information right alongside the New York Times or Wall Street Journal. On the internet, everyone is equally accessible and the page of the multi-billion dollar corporation is exactly the same size as the page for the guy blogging from his smart-phone.

Statistics now show that more people receive their news from websites and blogs than from all print media combined. The internet, a medium that was largely amateur driven and populated by a peculiar and specialized group of enthusiasts only 15 years ago has, in the last 5 years, managed to take on and conquer the one-time giants of the media world. And the point that I would make here is this: the media giants saw it coming and their reaction was to protect their turf by attempting to change the already established rules of the internet game to allow them to import the status quo of their dominance into a realm that had already disposed of them and moved on. The result is a sort of “Jurassic Park” of media dinosaurs relegated to an online island far removed from reality, living out their final days fighting and devouring each other while the rest of the world watches with the sense of detached amazement that comes from seeing once-great beings become inconsequential curiosities. Their extinction had already happened and that fate was accomplished even before the first mouse-click by a force far more powerful than the internet. It was the idea that news and information can’t be owned and sold in a world that now sees it as something free. News and information is a part of the culture and belongs to it, not to the New York Times and not to any company, government or person.

It might be obvious by now that I’m inferring an analogy here to the situation developing in Catholic liturgical music. It’s not really a true analogy because while music exists in real time and is experienced as such through performance, it is also like news and information insofar as it has historically been distributed by publishers in the form of print media which is claimed to be the property of the publisher and which is then sold to the consumer. But liturgical music is also like news and information as a sense is rapidly developing that,in whatever form, it belongs to the liturgy and to the faithful, not to this or that publisher.

So this may not be so much an analogy as it is another part of the same phenomenon described above, but one which has lagged behind slightly because of the slow-moving nature of liturgical music media which renews in one year cycles for so-called “disposable” hymnals, and in 5-10 year cycles for hard-cover hymnals. With the implementation of the New Translation, all of it is “up for renewal” at once, allowing an assessment of options that is unprecedented, at least in modern times. And if that’s true, there may be as different a future for liturgical music now as there was for newspapers, magazines and books 10 years ago.

I am going to end here by looking back to the time 10 years ago when the media giants failed to see the writing on the wall. I would suggest that there has been a lot of writing going on these past few years, and the message on the liturgical music wall is pretty clear. Those who understand the message will be poised and ready, but you really have to understand the message first.

What is to Become of the ICEL Chants?

2010-09-24T10:26:00.000-07:00

As we move forward into the coming year, one of the nagging questions that is still "hanging out there" is the role that will be played by the ICEL Chant Settings of the Ordinary. These settings were "composed" (OK... they are actually adaptations of the Gregorian melodies fit to the newly translated Ordinary texts... but that is a fine point!) under the direction of ICEL and are to be included with the New Missal as the normative settings of those texts. Other Chants are also included in the collection, such as the dialogues and prefaces, as well as psalm-tone settings which may be used for singing the Gospels on particular occasions. The totality of this collection comprises what I have come to call "The ICEL Kyriale".

The project came to light in 2008, much to the surprise of many. Immediately there was discussion and debate about what role these settings would play in the implementation of the New Missal Translation. Foremost among the questions posed was whether these settings would be somehow mandated for use. At this time, it is a question that has still not been answered.

Most mandates, at least within the Catholic liturgy, are exclusive mandates... mandates that particular things must be used, or be said, or be done to the exclusion of other things being used or said or done. There are mandates that particular materials must be used for sacred vessels, and that particular substances must be used for the sacred hosts and wine. There are mandates that the readings of the particular day must be used, and that these must be from the approved Lectionary for Mass. There are mandates that the words of consecration must be said without variation or alteration, and on a greater scale, a mandate that the texts of the Mass must not be altered or improvised by anyone, including Priests. There are mandates that particular folmulae and actions must be used in Baptism, and that particular actions must be done as indicated in the books regarding the consecration of the Bread and Wine. All of these, and many more, are exclusive mandates in that they indicate both what must be used or said or done, and proscribe that nothing else may be used or said or done in their place.

So the idea of there being a "mandate" regarding the ICEL Chants would be bound to raise more than a few eyebrows, and for good reason. To begin with, previous mandates regarding musical settings had more to do with the texts than with the musical settings themselves. Musical settings per se were addressed by less stringent documents which proscribed some attributes of the settings regarding formal characteristics and liturgical use. However, there has never, at least to my knowledge, been a specific setting of the required texts mandated for use, nor would it be practical to do so.

A mandate of any liturgical nature has two distinct parts. First, there must be a mandate to produce and provide the thing that is being required, whether it be a Lectionary with specified texts, candles made of the appropriately proportioned Beeswax, or whatever the thing is that is required. While many such things were historically handled "in house" by the Church, today much of the production end of things is handled by private concerns which must follow the Church's proscriptions in order to be considered liturgical vendors for catholic parishes.

Secondly, there has to be a legislative mandate that the thing, whatever it may be, MUST be used or said or done to the exclusion of other things. There must be a specific "disallowing" of other options.

And this is precisely why the situation of the ICEL Chants is becoming more of an issue as we move towards the implementation of the New Translation in November 2011. At this point, the ICEL Chants are the only setting of the Ordinary yet to be approved for liturgical use. Publishers are REQUIRED to include the ICEL Chant settings as the normative setting in all published liturgical books, hymnals, guides or Missals intended for liturgical use. In both permanent and renewable hymnals or songbooks, where there are settings of the Orinary included with an Order of Mass, the ICEL Chant settings MUST be included as the setting within the Order of Mass. This much has already been mandated

Furthermore, a quick look at the web sites of the major publishers will reveal a statement like the following:

We have been asked by the United States Bishops' Committee on Divine Worship to remind you that the musical settings are for preview only and not yet approved for liturgical use. In addition, we are not yet being allowed to share any complete settings.

So... in addition to the ICEL Chants being mandated for inclusion in all published resources, all other settings, at this point, have not received approval for inclusion, for sale, or even for posting in their entirety online for viewing. One seriously has to ask.... why is this? Is there a process for these settings to be approved? If not, why not approve them now? Is it simply to keep these settings from being used ahead of time? That would make sense and may well be the explanation. But if that's the case, why release the ICEL settings now since they are also not to be used until November 2011?

As the time gets closer we'll have to watch what happens concerning approval for these "other settings" of the Mass texts. My general impression is that they will eventually be approved for inclusion in the books, but always in addition to the primary ICEL settings.

As of right now, it looks strangely like a mandate, but a mandate of a very different kind, allowing exceptions but in a secondary capacity. That's where things are right now.

Cardinal George on the Need for a New Translation

2010-09-24T08:37:00.000-07:00

Francis Cardinal George (Archdiocese of Chicago) gives some interesting insight into the New Translation.

Let the Catechesis Begin!

2010-09-24T06:38:00.000-07:00

With the final approval of the 3rd Edition of the Roman Missal in August (adding the caveat that this is not the first "final approval" of the text!), we enter into the period of catechesis leading up to the implementation on Sunday, November 27th of 2011.

Already, Bishop's Conferences, Regional Conferences, National Liturgy groups, Dioceses and local Parishes are undertaking the process of informing parishioners of the coming changes, training parish musicians in new styles and forms of liturgical music for the Mass and most importantly, introducing the new texts to the Priests and beginning the process of "re-imagining" the post-conciliar liturgy that has been called for in Liturgiam Authenticam and Sacramentum Caritatis.

Catechetical materials for the implementation are now being produced and approved by the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship from a variety of sources. Some of these resources, such as those produced by the Federation of Diocesan Liturgical Commissions are of the "train the trainers" type.... workshops and materials intended to train Diocesan and Parish leaders who will return to their respective local areas and train others. Much the same, and somewhat overlapping in terms of personnel and materials are the catechetical programs from the USCCB. These programs, in the form of seminars and training sessions for Priests, Seminarians and liturgical leaders have been produced in conjunction with the FDLC and The National Association of Pastoral Musicians.

The NPM, for its part, has focused on revisiting the 2007 Bishops Committee Instruction on Music, Sing To The Lord, Music in Divine Worship. This document, which perplexed many musicians at the time of its publication, is now more clearly able to be seen as an instruction for the reform of liturgical music in conjunction with the implementation of the New Translation. NPM should be encouraged to continue its emphasis on this document and every Catholic musician should place a great priority on re-reading and studying this document and the provisions therein in relation to the liturgical demands of the New Translation. It can only be hoped that both the NPM and Catholic musicians will consider the entirety of this document and its vision and not merely those parts which are convenient.

There are also a great many resources for information online.... among my favorites is Gotta Sing, Gotta Pray, a blog by Jerry Galipeau of WLP. Jerry features posts on the New Translation each Tuesday and Thursday. As the Editor of one of the major publishing houses, Dr. Galipeau has insights into the process and progress of the New Translation that are both informative and interesting. Regarding sacred music, and from a very different perspective is a site originating from the Church Music Association of America (CMAA) appropriately titled The Chant Cafe. While the articles and discussions more generally focus on the restoration of sacred chant and polyphony in the liturgy, the emphasis lately has been on the primary issues of the music for the New Translation - vernacular chant and vernacular versions of the Antiphons. Both of the above sites also allow for comment and discussion, allowing a unique opportunity for questions and obtaining additional resources.

There are individual entities who have undertaken the production of training materials as well, all of which must have the approval of the USCCB Committee on Divine Worship. One of the most notable is a Seminar/ Workshop for Priests and Seminarians by Msgr. James P. Moroney, Executive Secretary of Vox Clara, produced at the request of Francis Cardinal George of the Archdiocese of Chicago for the instruction of priests and Seminarians in his Diocese. Msgr. Moroney has a busy schedule of lecture dates around the country during the coming year, and the entire program is also available on DVD or can be viewed online HERE. The program has some very notable advocates, including Cardinal Francis Arinze, Cardinal Antonio Canizares, Cardinal George Pell and Cardinal George.

Msgr. Moroney's approach to the New Translation differs from those previously mentioned here in that he firstly sees the implementation as being an action of liturgical renewal for Priests, focusing on the Priest's praying of the texts as the primary form of catechesis for the congregation. In doing so, he affirms the vision of the New Translation set out in Liturgiam Authenticam, and the more general vision of liturgical catechesis set forth in Sacrosanctum Concilium, and more recently in Sacramentum Caritatis. While noting that the implementation of the New Translation will present some challenges, Msgr. Moroney's program is refreshing in the absence of an underlying assumption that the New Translation faces overwhelming opposition by Priests and the faithful that needs to be overcome by extensive explanation of the translation and approval process and detailed theological and liturgical justification for any and all changes to the texts spoken by the congregation.

Regardless of the resources used, the time has come to begin the process of implementation. I hope you will return here from time to time as I will do my best to keep up to date on issues surrounding the New Translation and liturgical music during the coming year.

Deo Gratias!