Music in the new translation of the Mass

[liturgyluver]

Why not a polyphonic setting with chant propers? Propers as far as, offertory and communion.

I certainly agree with a polyphonic setting where a choir can do justice to it. I do know a few places that chant the propers and sing a hymn too, but somehow doing both doesn’t work. I think either one or the other - and feel both options are valid.

 

[liturgyluver]

I think YOU should read the writings…

It is NOT offensive that a hymn takes the place of the introit, because the GIRM allows for that. All you have to do is simply read it. You cannot place restrictions were there are none—otherwise you are becoming the proverbial “more Catholic than the pope”.

There is a setting of the Gloria, with the correct words, used to the tune of Angels we have heard on high. While it would be improper to sing the words of “Angels” in place of the gloria, it is fine to sing the words of the gloria to to the tune.

Yes indeed. It allows for the option of “a suitable liturgical song” at introit, offertory and post-communion.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I certainly agree with a polyphonic setting where a choir can do justice to it. I do know a few places that chant the propers and sing a hymn too, but somehow doing both doesn’t work. I think either one or the other - and feel both options are valid.

I really dislike hymns during communion, especially when the organist decides to go ham and jam out like a rock star. Absolutely ruins the prayerful silence. Chant the proper from the Missal or the Graduale, which is always short and quiet too (since it’s chant), and then no more sound from then on until after communion is over.

 

[agapewolf]

I really dislike hymns during communion, especially when the organist decides to go ham and jam out like a rock star. Absolutely ruins the prayerful silence. Chant the proper from the Missal or the Graduale, which is always short and quiet too (since it’s chant), and then no more sound from then on until after communion is over.

Except that the church disagrees with you.

 

[liturgyluver]

I really dislike hymns during communion, especially when the organist decides to go ham and jam out like a rock star. Absolutely ruins the prayerful silence. Chant the proper from the Missal or the Graduale, which is always short and quiet too (since it’s chant), and then no more sound from then on until after communion is over.

Actually I don’t particulalry like hymns during communion - I prefer quiet organ music or a choir anthem, but our hymns are often played after communion when everyone has received.**

 

[jimrob]

One of our parishioners (she’s in the third year studying music at University) has written a setting for the new translation. I rather like it - although it’s neither Greogorian chant nor Palestrina. If anyone would like a copy, send me a message and I’ll let you know when a published version is available.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Except that the church disagrees with you.

I don’t think you’re privy to that information. I never said it wasn’t allowed.

 

[agapewolf]

I don’t think you’re privy to that information. I never said it wasn’t allowed.

This doesn’t make sense. If you want to be purposely obtuse or coy, fine. But the fact is the church calls for music through communion , and gives the reason for it. Not silence.

 

[FrancisB]

This doesn’t make sense. If you want to be purposely obtuse or coy, fine. But the fact is the church calls for music through communion , and gives the reason for it. Not silence.

Yes, but here again the traditional music was a quiet chant that is still called for in the GIRM. That was traditionally followed by a quiet motet, sung by the choir, not a hymn.

Now let me be address your other issue, agapewolf, without going back and quoting your previous post: the GIRM:

1. In choosing the chants between the readings, as well as the chants at the Entrance, at the Offertory, and at Communion, the norms laid down in their proper places are to be observed (cf. nos. 40-41, 47-48, 61-64, 74, 86-88).

notice the use of the word “chants”:

1. The main place should be given, all things being equal, to Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman Liturgy. Other kinds of sacred music, in particular polyphony, are in no way excluded, provided that they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they foster the participation of all the faithful.

Notice that the statement is “other kinds of sacred music” and not “other kinds of music”. Folk music, rock music, pop music, jazz music, opera &c. are all secular music. Look at what follows “in particular polyphony”. Not singer-songwriter hymns. Polyphony.

There is certainly room for a traditional hymn at the recessional, and even where motets were, but there’s no reason to cover up the propers of the mass the way that was done. While it’s true that the GIRM did provide for that in the past, here’s what it says about the introit in the new 2011 edition that came with the new translations:

1. 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.

1. 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.

All four options are the text of a suitable chant. The music doesn’t have to be chant, but the words have to be the introit. That whole “or other suitable song” clause was tossed. Requiescat in pace, “vel carmen aptum aliud”.

 

[liturgyluver]

There is certainly room for a traditional hymn at the recessional, and even where motets were, but there’s no reason to cover up the propers of the mass the way that was done. While it’s true that the GIRM did provide for that in the past, here’s what it says about the introit in the new 2011 edition that came with the new translations:

All four options are the text of a suitable chant. The music doesn’t have to be chant, but the words have to be the introit. That whole “or other suitable song” clause was tossed. Requiescat in pace, “vel carmen aptum aliud”.

Thanks for highlighting the revised GIRM for the US. As usual with Vatican documents though, it is full of contradictory passages. For exampe while it purports only to allow chant at Communion, paragraph 86 then states “However, if there is a hymn after communion, the communion chant should be ended in a timely matter” which hardly gives the chant the status it deserves if it being sung by the choir.

In the UK where there is no choir to chant the Introit, a hymn is sung and the antiphon is spoken and this practice will continue.

 

[agapewolf]

Yes, but here again the traditional music was a quiet chant that is still called for in the GIRM. That was traditionally followed by a quiet motet, sung by the choir, not a hymn.

Now let me be address your other issue, agapewolf, without going back and quoting your previous post: the GIRM:

notice the use of the word “chants”:

Notice that the statement is “other kinds of sacred music” and not “other kinds of music”. Folk music, rock music, pop music, jazz music, opera &c. are all secular music. Look at what follows “in particular polyphony”. Not singer-songwriter hymns. Polyphony.

There is certainly room for a traditional hymn at the recessional, and even where motets were, but there’s no reason to cover up the propers of the mass the way that was done. While it’s true that the GIRM did provide for that in the past, here’s what it says about the introit in the new 2011 edition that came with the new translations:

All four options are the text of a suitable chant. The music doesn’t have to be chant, but the words have to be the introit. That whole “or other suitable song” clause was tossed. Requiescat in pace, “vel carmen aptum aliud”.

Nope, the use of the word “chant” in the GIRM is NOT referencing merely gregorian chant. It is a generic term to cover the music. and I did not say “jazz music”. But you saying it is “offensive” to have songs in place of chant was out of line.

 

[opus101]

Notice that the statement is “other kinds of sacred music” and not “other kinds of music”. Folk music, rock music, pop music, jazz music, opera &c. are all secular music. Look at what follows “in particular polyphony”. Not singer-songwriter hymns. Polyphony.

There is a very recent article by Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix that supports your statement. This wonderful article can be found here:catholicsun.org/bishop/2011/121511.html

From the section called “What is sacred music?” :

“Sacred music is distinct from the broader category of what we may call ‘religious’ music, that which aids and supports Christian faith but is not primarily a part of the sacred liturgy. ‘Religious’ music includes various devotional music, such as much popular hymnody, ‘praise and worship’ music, as well as a host of other musical forms.”

Later, he quotes Pope Pius XII on “religious music”:

“…it can exercise great and salutary force and power on the souls of the faithful, both when it is used in churches during NON-LITURGICAL services and ceremonies, or when it is used OUTSIDE churches at various solemnities and celebrations.” (Musicae Sacrae Disciplina, #36)

Personally, I think that the misuse of this type of music (by using it in the Mass) has come about, at least partly, by the huge drop in non-liturgical devotions at parishes. In most places,there is no venue for this sort of music outside of Mass.

 

[30miller]

There is a very recent article by Bishop Olmsted of Phoenix that supports your statement. This wonderful article can be found here:catholicsun.org/bishop/2011/121511.html

From the section called “What is sacred music?” :

“Sacred music is distinct from the broader category of what we may call ‘religious’ music, that which aids and supports Christian faith but is not primarily a part of the sacred liturgy. ‘Religious’ music includes various devotional music, such as much popular hymnody, ‘praise and worship’ music, as well as a host of other musical forms.”

Later, he quotes Pope Pius XII on “religious music”:

“…it can exercise great and salutary force and power on the souls of the faithful, both when it is used in churches during NON-LITURGICAL services and ceremonies, or when it is used OUTSIDE churches at various solemnities and celebrations.” (Musicae Sacrae Disciplina, #36)

Personally, I think that the misuse of this type of music (by using it in the Mass) has come about, at least partly, by the huge drop in non-liturgical devotions at parishes. In most places,there is no venue for this sort of music outside of Mass.

Well said. I thank both you and FrancisB for sharing your erudition on this topic.

 

[opus101]

One of our parishioners (she’s in the third year studying music at University) has written a setting for the new translation. I rather like it - although it’s neither Greogorian chant nor Palestrina. If anyone would like a copy, send me a message and I’ll let you know when a published version is available.

Please keep us informed about this! When the time comes, could you give a reminder?

 

[FrancisB]

Nope, the use of the word “chant” in the GIRM is NOT referencing merely gregorian chant. It is a generic term to cover the music. and I did not say “jazz music”. But you saying it is “offensive” to have songs in place of chant was out of line.

This is a half truth. The half that is true is that it is not “referencing merely Gregorian chant”. The second half (“It is a generic term to over the music.”) is not true. Chant is a style of singing. Gregorian chant is a body of repertoire in a specific musical style. There are other forms of chant that are equally fitting: Ambrosian chant, Mozarabic chant, Old Roman chant, or even more modern forms like Gelineau psalmody, or the music published by Corpus Christi Watershed, and that’s just scraping the tip of the iceberg. Chant is a lot broader than people that don’t look into it every imagine. That said, it is not a “generic term”, but a rather specific musical one.

And when I said it was offensive to have songs in place of chant, I meant it. I explained that quite thoroughly. If you choose not to accept the fact that I backed that opinion up with facts, even quoting the GIRM when you tried to suggest that I didn’t know what I was talking about, then you are just not interested in what the church actually has said. This is not a matter of whose opinion is better. I didn’t say I like the way chant sounds better; I said it is the music of the church. I listen to plenty of other kinds of music the rest of the week, including plenty of folk rock while I’m playing my guitar with my elementary school students. I just spent the whole day to-day playing secular Christmas songs with the students. I don’t hate all of that music; it just isn’t music for the mass.

 

[FrancisB]

Personally, I think that the misuse of this type of music (by using it in the Mass) has come about, at least partly, by the huge drop in non-liturgical devotions at parishes. In most places,there is no venue for this sort of music outside of Mass.

The rest of that quote was great, but I think this hits the nail right on the head.

 

[Anthony_V]

I think that Marty Haugen isn’t most traditional Catholic’s cup of tea to begin with. Certainly not mine. It would be wonderful to have all of our music written by someone like Eric Whitacre or Ennio Morricone.
And the jazz stuff… that just makes me just want to bang my head against a wall. Don’t get me wrong, I love my big band jazz-- but it’s terribly out of place in a liturgical setting.

 

[FrancisB]

I think that Marty Haugen isn’t most traditional Catholic’s cup of tea to begin with. Certainly not mine. It would be wonderful to have all of our music written by someone like Eric Whitacre or Ennio Morricone.
And the jazz stuff… that just makes me just want to bang my head against a wall. Don’t get me wrong, I love my big band jazz-- but it’s terribly out of place in a liturgical setting.

I couldn’t agree with you more. Maybe it would be nice if we would pay this calibre of people to write our music for us, you know, like we used to…

 

[Anthony_V]

I couldn’t agree with you more. Maybe it would be nice if we would pay this calibre of people to write our music for us, you know, like we used to…

Let’s hope Händel is a saint, because we need some inspiration…
Send down inspiration, all ye holy composers! Bring out the incense and holy water, cause we need it!

youtube.com/watch?v=usfiAsWR4qU

 

[FrancisB]

Let’s hope Händel is a saint, because we need some inspiration…
Send down inspiration, all ye holy composers! Bring out the incense and holy water, cause we need it!

youtube.com/watch?v=usfiAsWR4qU

Heresy

In all honesty, though, it’s pretty, but it’s just the Baroque equivalent of the same problem: it’s religious opera music, not sacred music. Anyway, he’s a Protestant, and in some Protestant “churches” he is considered a saint.