Liturgical Music: Official Guidlines

[CDNowak]

Before we even start discussing which hymns, we should see where hymnody falls in structure of sung parts:

29. The following belong to the first degree:

(a) In the entrance rites: the greeting of the priest together with the reply of the people; the prayer.

(b) In the Liturgy of the Word: the acclamations at the Gospel.

(c) In the Eucharistic Liturgy: the prayer over the offerings; the preface with its dialogue and the Sanctus; the final doxology of the Canon, the Lord’s prayer with its introduction and embolism; the Pax Domini; the prayer after the Communion; the formulas of dismissal.

1. The following belong to the second degree:

(a)** the Kyrie, Gloria and Agnus Dei;**

(b) the Creed;

(c) the prayer of the faithful.

1. The following belong to the third degree:

(a) the songs at the Entrance and Communion processions;

(b) the songs after the Lesson or Epistle;

(c)** the Alleluia before the Gospel;**

(d) the song at the Offertory;

(e) the readings of Sacred Scripture, unless it seems more suitable to proclaim them without singing.

Bold = Ordinary, Red = Propers, Blue = Hymns

So the propers, regardless of language should be sung before we worry about the hymns. As far as style, yes, the Church prefers chant*, followed by polyphony (as it is derived from chant), followed by other forms of sacred music. As even Newbie’s quotes show. (BTW, the permission for wider use of the mother tongue is not for Latin, but the vernacular).

*interesting note, with the extension of the Anglican provisions, we have a unique opportunity to recover the historical development of English language chant.

 

[japhy]

**116. ** … But other kinds of sacred music, especially polyphony, are by no means excluded from liturgical celebrations, so long as they accord with the spirit of the liturgical action, as laid down in Art. 30.
“…rather than replace them altogether with hymns” doesn’t seem to be consistant with what’s written above.

Other kinds of sacred music being admitted into the Mass doesn’t mean they are necessarily to replace Gregorian chant (altogether, even!) rather than supplement it. I have been to E.F. Masses where polyphonic settings were used for some of the propers, English hymns supplemented the Introit and Communion chants, and a hymn was sung during the recessional. Gregorian chant was still given the principal place, but it was supplemented with English and Latin hymnody, and replaced (in a couple places) with polyphony. Sounds like SC 116 to me.

1. … Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.
   Doesn’t mention singing or chanting here.

Look harder. See Jubilate Deo and see the letter that accompanied it, Voluntati Obsequens. Here are a few choice excerpts:
… This [is a] response to a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the “Gloria”, the “Credo”, the “Sanctus”, and the “Agnus Dei”.

… [Remember] the recommendation of the Second Vatican Council “…steps must be taken to ensure that the faithful are able to chant together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (SC 54)

… [The unity of the faithful] finds particularly apt and even sensible expression through the use of Latin Gregorian chant.

Down the centuries, Gregorian chant has accompanied liturgical celebrations in the Roman rite, has nourished men’s faith and has fostered their piety, while in the process achieving an artistic perfection which the Church rightly considers a patrimony of inestimable value and which the Council recognized as “the chant especially suited to the Roman liturgy.” (SC 116)

…

This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living traditions of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian chant the place which is due to it.
Our current Holy Father has expressed his desire for Gregorian chant to be used in the celebration of the Mass (not just his own Masses, mind you):
42. … In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. … 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. (Proposition 36, SC 116)

1. … In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (SC 36, 54) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (Proposition 36)
   Proposition 36 is:
   The Use of Latin in Liturgical Celebrations

To express better the unity and universality of the Church in the celebration of the Eucharist during international meetings, ever more frequent today, it is proposed:

– to suggest that the concelebration of the Mass be in Latin (except Readings, the homily and the Prayer of the Faithful). So also should be the prayers of the tradition of the Church, and musical compositions of Gregorian chant should eventually be sung;

– to recommend that priests be prepared in the seminary to understand and celebrate the Mass in Latin, as well as to use Latin prayers and know how to value Gregorian chant;

– to not neglect the possibility that the faithful themselves be educated in this respect.

1. 1. But since the use of the mother tongue … frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended … to some of the prayers and chants…
      Apparently the Bishops in the US don’t see the use of Latin or of GCs to be of any “great advantage to the people”.

The Pope thinks otherwise, and the Council thought otherwise. The Council said “some of the prayers and chants”.

 

[pnewton]

This is only a USCCB document, but it has the benefit of being recent and germaine. The bottom line is that one should follow one’s bishop in such things as understanding and applying the Church’s teaching on music in the liturgy. The Church adheres to the principle of subsidiarity allowing the most local bishop authority in this area. They are responsible for adhering to the Church’s guidelines.

usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

 

[Cat]

This is only a USCCB document, but it has the benefit of being recent and germaine. The bottom line is that one should follow one’s bishop in such things as understanding and applying the Church’s teaching on music in the liturgy. The Church adheres to the principle of subsidiarity allowing the most local bishop authority in this area. They are responsible for adhering to the Church’s guidelines.

usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

Thank you.

 

[benedictgal]

This is only a USCCB document, but it has the benefit of being recent and germaine. The bottom line is that one should follow one’s bishop in such things as understanding and applying the Church’s teaching on music in the liturgy. The Church adheres to the principle of subsidiarity allowing the most local bishop authority in this area. They are responsible for adhering to the Church’s guidelines.

usccb.org/liturgy/SingToTheLord.pdf

Yes. However, bear in mind that Sing to the Lord does not carry much weight since it failed to pass by the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops in order for it to get the required recognitio from Rome. If you recall, this document was supposed to bring the United States into conformity with Liturgiam Authenticam, which mandated that:

Sung texts and liturgical hymns have a particular importance and efficacy. Especially on Sunday, the “Day of the Lord”, the singing of the faithful gathered for the celebration of Holy Mass, no less than the prayers, the readings and the homily, express in an authentic way the message of the Liturgy while fostering a sense of common faith and communion in charity. If they are used widely by the faithful, they should remain relatively fixed so that confusion among the people may be avoided.

…Within five years from the publication of this Instruction, the Conferences of Bishops, necessarily in collaboration with the national and diocesan Commissions and with other experts, shall provide for the publication of a directory or repertory of texts intended for liturgical singing. This document shall be transmitted for the necessary recognitio to the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Liturgiam Authenticam was promulgated in 2001. This document was supposed to have come to fruition in 2006. Unfortunately, the document got hijacked by the FDLC and the NPM to the point that what resulted was not the original intent, but, something different. There are also inconsistencies within the document, especially where the additional tropes for the Agnus Dei are concerned. As such, the document does not carry anymore weight than Music in Catholic Worship. It makes recommendations, yes, but, they are not binding.

In its original form, Sing to the Lord mandated a few things and even came down rather harshly on what the publishing houses were doing. Unfortunately, the CAF system is such that I do not know how to post the powerpoint presentation of the original document. I have, however, taken some of the texts and posted same in this thread. Evidently, the USCCB found a lot of problems in what is out there today.

The Holy See will be coming out with an authoritative document on Sacred Music for use in the liturgy. It was supposed to have come out early this year, but, because of changes in the administration of the CDWDS (top two spots), it will more than likely come out late this year or early next. This will be the one to watch.

 

[pnewton]

Yes. However, bear in mind that Sing to the Lord does not carry much weight since it failed to pass by the necessary 2/3 vote of the Latin Rite bishops in order for it to get the required recognitio from Rome.

I do not know that it carries any “weight” because the USCCB does not have canonical status to tell any bishop what to do. It is however on the USCCB website and is of value for some. I understand the status, but it is there. That is why I linked it directly.

 

[Newbie2]

Other kinds of sacred music being admitted into the Mass doesn’t mean they are necessarily to replace Gregorian chant (altogether, even!) rather than supplement it. I have been to E.F. Masses where polyphonic settings were used for some of the propers, English hymns supplemented the Introit and Communion chants, and a hymn was sung during the recessional. Gregorian chant was still given the principal place, but it was supplemented with English and Latin hymnody, and replaced (in a couple places) with polyphony. Sounds like SC 116 to me.

Look harder. See Jubilate Deo and see the letter that accompanied it, Voluntati Obsequens. Here are a few choice excerpts:
… This [is a] response to a desire which the Holy Father had frequently expressed, that all the faithful should know at least some Latin Gregorian chants, such as, for example, the “Gloria”, the “Credo”, the “Sanctus”, and the “Agnus Dei”.

… [Remember] the recommendation of the Second Vatican Council “…steps must be taken to ensure that the faithful are able to chant together in Latin those parts of the ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.” (SC 54)

… [The unity of the faithful] finds particularly apt and even sensible expression through the use of Latin Gregorian chant.

Down the centuries, Gregorian chant has accompanied liturgical celebrations in the Roman rite, has nourished men’s faith and has fostered their piety, while in the process achieving an artistic perfection which the Church rightly considers a patrimony of inestimable value and which the Council recognized as “the chant especially suited to the Roman liturgy.” (SC 116)

…

This minimum repertoire of Gregorian chant has been prepared with that purpose in mind: to make it easier for Christians to achieve unity and spiritual harmony with their brothers and with the living traditions of the past. Hence it is that those who are trying to improve the quality of congregational singing cannot refuse to Gregorian chant the place which is due to it.
Our current Holy Father has expressed his desire for Gregorian chant to be used in the celebration of the Mass (not just his own Masses, mind you):
42. … In the course of her two-thousand-year history, the Church has created, and still creates, music and songs which represent a rich patrimony of faith and love. This heritage must not be lost. … 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. (Proposition 36, SC 116)

1. … In order to express more clearly the unity and universality of the Church, I wish to endorse the proposal made by the Synod of Bishops, in harmony with the directives of the Second Vatican Council, (SC 36, 54) that, with the exception of the readings, the homily and the prayer of the faithful, it is fitting that such liturgies be celebrated in Latin. Similarly, the better-known prayers of the Church’s tradition should be recited in Latin and, if possible, selections of Gregorian chant should be sung. Speaking more generally, I ask that future priests, from their time in the seminary, receive the preparation needed to understand and to celebrate Mass in Latin, and also to use Latin texts and execute Gregorian chant; nor should we forget that the faithful can be taught to recite the more common prayers in Latin, and also to sing parts of the liturgy to Gregorian chant. (Proposition 36)
   Proposition 36 is:
   The Use of Latin in Liturgical Celebrations

To express better the unity and universality of the Church in the celebration of the Eucharist during international meetings, ever more frequent today, it is proposed:

– to suggest that the concelebration of the Mass be in Latin (except Readings, the homily and the Prayer of the Faithful). So also should be the prayers of the tradition of the Church, and musical compositions of Gregorian chant should eventually be sung;

– to recommend that priests be prepared in the seminary to understand and celebrate the Mass in Latin, as well as to use Latin prayers and know how to value Gregorian chant;

– to not neglect the possibility that the faithful themselves be educated in this respect.

The Pope thinks otherwise, and the Council thought otherwise. The Council said “some of the prayers and chants”.

OK. Then we might agree that it is preferable for some of the prayers and music should be in a GC form?

Ultimately, like so many other liturgical matters, what is permitted for liturgical music on a practical level is up the the bishop, like pnewton said.

 

[japhy]

Then we might agree that it is preferable for some of the prayers and music should be in a GC form? Ultimately, like so many other liturgical matters, what is permitted for liturgical music on a practical level is up the the bishop, like pnewton said.

Not merely preferable but proper and, I daresay, expected.

And I think bishops should expend a little bit of effort to restore Gregorian chant to the parishes under their care. It’s not unpractical for congregations to sing Gregorian chant. It’s just untried.

 

[Newbie2]

And I think bishops should expend a little bit of effort to restore Gregorian chant to the parishes under their care. It’s not unpractical for congregations to sing Gregorian chant. It’s just untried.

I agree that perhaps, like offering the Latin mass, masses with the GC should be offered. However, where we part company is perhaps mandating GCs at all masses, replacing all music currently used. That I would see as a waste and misuse of the musical talents that we’ve been given through the musicians, choirs, musical directors, etc that serve our parishes.

 

[E.E.N.S]

I agree that perhaps, like offering the Latin mass, masses with the GC should be offered. However, where we part company is perhaps mandating GCs at all masses, replacing all music currently used.

I don’t think japhy was saying to replace ALL non-Gregorian Chant with Gregorian Chant, but merely to restore it (as the Church desires) to it’s proper place in the Liturgy.

That I would see as a waste and misuse of the musical talents that we’ve been given through the musicians, choirs, musical directors, etc that serve our parishes.

Those musicians, choirs, musical directors, etc., could learn Gregorian Chant, teach it and use it, (albeit without having to use it exclusively)…it’s not that difficult, I know, as I participate in a schola myself.

 

[pnewton]

it’s not that difficult, I know, as I participate in a schola myself.

I have had the opposite experience. Even something as simple as the Pater Noster took 20-30 hours to learn well enough to try and teach it.

 

[japhy]

I agree that perhaps, like offering the Latin mass, masses with the GC should be offered. However, where we part company is perhaps mandating GCs at all masses, replacing all music currently used.

I have not said that Gregorian chant should “replac[e] all music currently used.” What I have said is this:
The Gregorian propers can certainly be supplemented with Latin or vernacular hymns, and there’s always the recessional (for which there is no liturgically prescribed music).

While other forms of sacred music are admissible, Gregorian chant should be given primacy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 116) So yes, we should be using Gregorian chant at Mass. … If you’re not going to use Gregorian chant, the least you can do is sing the liturgical texts of the Mass in some other sacred style, rather than replace them altogether with hymns.

I have been to E.F. Masses where polyphonic settings were used for some of the propers, English hymns supplemented the Introit and Communion chants, and a hymn was sung during the recessional. Gregorian chant was still given the principal place, but it was supplemented with English and Latin hymnody, and replaced (in a couple places) with polyphony.

That I would see as a waste and misuse of the musical talents that we’ve been given through the musicians, choirs, musical directors, etc that serve our parishes.

There would be no waste of vocal talent if we were to restore Gregorian chant to its rightful place, and no waste of instrumental talent, unless you were to utterly obliterate music that is not completely vocal.

The Church has already made musical decisions for us: there are predetermined liturgical texts (propers) waiting to be sung!

The problem is not that some people want Gregorian chant to replace all music currently in us; the problem is that many people want the music currently in use to replace all Gregorian chant.

 

[Newbie2]

I don’t think japhy was saying to replace ALL non-Gregorian Chant with Gregorian Chant, but merely to restore it (as the Church desires) to it’s proper place in the Liturgy. Those musicians, choirs, musical directors, etc., could learn Gregorian Chant, teach it and use it, (albeit without having to use it exclusively)…it’s not that difficult, I know, as I participate in a schola myself.

If it’s not that difficult, I submit it’s a waste of talent. Musicians, good Musicians and good vocalists do things that are difficult to do and make them seem easy. If the GC is so easy, their talent in being able to do what Joe Average cannot is wasted.

I have not said that Gregorian chant should “replac[e] all music currently used.” What I have said is this:
The Gregorian propers can certainly be supplemented with Latin or vernacular hymns, and there’s always the recessional (for which there is no liturgically prescribed music).

While other forms of sacred music are admissible, Gregorian chant should be given primacy. (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 116) So yes, we should be using Gregorian chant at Mass. … If you’re not going to use Gregorian chant, the least you can do is sing the liturgical texts of the Mass in some other sacred style, rather than replace them altogether with hymns.

I have been to E.F. Masses where polyphonic settings were used for some of the propers, English hymns supplemented the Introit and Communion chants, and a hymn was sung during the recessional. Gregorian chant was still given the principal place, but it was supplemented with English and Latin hymnody, and replaced (in a couple places) with polyphony.

There would be no waste of vocal talent if we were to restore Gregorian chant to its rightful place, and no waste of instrumental talent, unless you were to utterly obliterate music that is not completely vocal.

The Church has already made musical decisions for us: there are predetermined liturgical texts (propers) waiting to be sung!

The problem is not that some people want Gregorian chant to replace all music currently in us; the problem is that many people want the music currently in use to replace all Gregorian chant.

Yes, I guess we don’t part company on that point. My bad.

I beg to differ on the waste of talent.

 

[japhy]

If it’s not that difficult, I submit it’s a waste of talent. Musicians, good Musicians and good vocalists do things that are difficult to do and make them seem easy. If the GC is so easy, their talent in being able to do what Joe Average cannot is wasted.

If you’re concerned that Gregorian chant is too easy, then mix in a bit of polyphony!

 

[Giga1992]

You sound like the perfect person to answer my questions. I am not Catholic, but I have really been getting into Gregorian Chant. In my own Orthodox tradition, there are 8 tones, or modes.There are also 8 in Gregorian Chant. My question is how are there so many masses in the Kyriale? How can there be 18 different sets of music when there are only 8 modes. It makes no sense to me, so I hope that you can help me out here.

 

[Sarabande]

If it’s not that difficult, I submit it’s a waste of talent. Musicians, good Musicians and good vocalists do things that are difficult to do and make them seem easy. If the GC is so easy, their talent in being able to do what Joe Average cannot is wasted.

I’ve just been following thread, but will reply to this.

I think you may be misunderstanding something. At least from what I’m reading by the other posters, no one is advocating to just have Gregorian Chant and throw out all other music written for the Church over the centuries. But they are advocating more usage of chant where for many years it had been abandoned/put aside.

I’m a trained, professional classical musician and will say that there are some very simple chants everyone can learn and sing and then there are some difficult chants which Joe Average may not be able to do for a while, without constant repetition. In regards to thinking that it’s a waste of talent, I can say very confidently, as a professional musician, that singing chant would never be considered a waste of talent for most trained singers, no matter how simple the chant is. It’s the same with the most simple musical composition. A good musician can make it seem like the most beautiful piece of music ever - played or sung. Any musician worth his/her salt is usually “raised” to treat each composition given to them with equality and respect no matter how simple it seems. What separates a musician from the Joe Average who does not have any musical training is that a musician can bring about a depth and beauty to a simple piece which a non-musician may not be able to bring. Although, that’s not to say there is sometimes something very beautiful and inspiring when you hear untrained voices sing hymns, chants, etc. together.

At the same time, the more simple chants are used at mass today so that Joe Average can “participate”. For instance, at our parish Latin OF masses, there is a mix of simple hymns, propers and chants for the congregation to participate in, but then the choir will sing the more complex works of polyphony or other kinds of motets which would require more skills to accomplish. So, you get the best of both worlds with that - a congregation who is able to pray along with song as well as a skilled choir to bring about further spiritual inspiration and prayer.

 

[benedictgal]

I’ve just been following thread, but will reply to this.

I think you may be misunderstanding something. At least from what I’m reading by the other posters, no one is advocating to just have Gregorian Chant and throw out all other music written for the Church over the centuries. But they are advocating more usage of chant where for many years it had been abandoned/put aside.

I’m a trained, professional classical musician and will say that there are some very simple chants everyone can learn and sing and then there are some difficult chants which Joe Average may not be able to do for a while, without constant repetition. In regards to thinking that it’s a waste of talent, I can say very confidently, as a professional musician, that singing chant would never be considered a waste of talent for most trained singers, no matter how simple the chant is. It’s the same with the most simple musical composition. A good musician can make it seem like the most beautiful piece of music ever - played or sung. Any musician worth his/her salt is usually “raised” to treat each composition given to them with equality and respect no matter how simple it seems. What separates a musician from the Joe Average who does not have any musical training is that a musician can bring about a depth and beauty to a simple piece which a non-musician may not be able to bring. Although, that’s not to say there is sometimes something very beautiful and inspiring when you hear untrained voices sing hymns, chants, etc. together.

At the same time, the more simple chants are used at mass today so that Joe Average can “participate”. For instance, at our parish Latin OF masses, there is a mix of simple hymns, propers and chants for the congregation to participate in, but then the choir will sing the more complex works of polyphony or other kinds of motets which would require more skills to accomplish. So, you get the best of both worlds with that - a congregation who is able to pray along with song as well as a skilled choir to bring about further spiritual inspiration and prayer.

Excellent post and great points!

 

[Newbie2]

I’ve just been following thread, but will reply to this.

I think you may be misunderstanding something. At least from what I’m reading by the other posters, no one is advocating to just have Gregorian Chant and throw out all other music written for the Church over the centuries. But they are advocating more usage of chant where for many years it had been abandoned/put aside.

I’m a trained, professional classical musician and will say that there are some very simple chants everyone can learn and sing and then there are some difficult chants which Joe Average may not be able to do for a while, without constant repetition. In regards to thinking that it’s a waste of talent, I can say very confidently, as a professional musician, that singing chant would never be considered a waste of talent for most trained singers, no matter how simple the chant is. It’s the same with the most simple musical composition. A good musician can make it seem like the most beautiful piece of music ever - played or sung. Any musician worth his/her salt is usually “raised” to treat each composition given to them with equality and respect no matter how simple it seems. What separates a musician from the Joe Average who does not have any musical training is that a musician can bring about a depth and beauty to a simple piece which a non-musician may not be able to bring. Although, that’s not to say there is sometimes something very beautiful and inspiring when you hear untrained voices sing hymns, chants, etc. together.

At the same time, the more simple chants are used at mass today so that Joe Average can “participate”. For instance, at our parish Latin OF masses, there is a mix of simple hymns, propers and chants for the congregation to participate in, but then the choir will sing the more complex works of polyphony or other kinds of motets which would require more skills to accomplish. So, you get the best of both worlds with that - a congregation who is able to pray along with song as well as a skilled choir to bring about further spiritual inspiration and prayer.

I’m OK with that, “more use of the GC”.

 

[japhy]

If the GC is so easy, their talent in being able to do what Joe Average cannot is wasted.

And another thing about Gregorian chant. The chants of the ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, Credo, Sanctus, Agnus Dei) are relatively simple. The chants of the proper are not. People with genuine vocal talent and skill would find a rewarding challenge in the propers.

 

[Blueknight719]

We too are also working on the Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei and was wondering if there was a site that translated latin into phonetics ? Example- Santus= San toos, that sort of thing it would really help those us struggling to get it right.
Thanks !