SPLIT: Option 4 in GIRM no. 48

[TheMc]

Catholic sacred music at most Masses I’ve attended is hardly Catholic, hardly sacred, hardly music. But it is allowed via the loophole (“in another setting”) in the 2011 GIRM. One has a better chance of hearing Catholic sacred music in a concert hall than in one’s parish.

I agree with you on your point about the lack of sacred music in most parishes. But look more carefully at parahraph 48:

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 Graduale Romanum as set to music there or in another setting;
   (2) the antiphon and psalm of the Graduale 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.

If there is no singing at the entrance, the antiphon given in the Missal is recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a reader; otherwise, it is recited by the priest himself, who may even adapt it as an introductory explanation (cf. no. 31).

If you look carefully, the “in another setting” loophole only applies to the graduale and missal proper texts (and maybe, it could be argued, to option 2). But option 4 is quite clear: “Another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action…” Yes. A liturgical chant. Not a song. Not even a good song. Not even a hymn (unless it’s the proper text from the graudale or missal). But a chant.

 

[Elizium23]

As has been explained already, the change in wording has not (yet) reflected a change in intent from Rome. Translation to English now uses formal equivalence, and the Latin words used in the original document directly correspond to the English word “chant” rather than “song” or “hymn”.

So to reflect reality, we should actually start calling hymns “chants” instead. Won’t that muddy the waters?!

If Rome had wished to convert us all to using chants, they would be making noise about that directly and in all countries, not just a tiny change in the tiny English-speaking world. As it is, Rome is currently leading by example and not by edict.

 

[MarkThompson]

If Rome had wished to convert us all to using chants, they would be making noise about that directly and in all countries, not just a tiny change in the tiny English-speaking world. As it is, Rome is currently leading by example and not by edict.

Exactly. I have set out my views on this here. A teaser:

• “Mandatory chant” isn’t the rule in any other country or language (Italy included, perhaps especially). Why would Rome intend to create a different rule – one not even applied in Rome or at papal liturgies – for English-speaking countries?
• The Church simply does not operate this way – slyly changing one word in a document, saying nothing about it, with the secret plan that this will in fact mandate a massive, costly, disruptive liturgical overhaul for everybody. When they want to announce huge changes that many people would hate, they will announce them and give the priests on the ground an opportunity to prepare for them in a pastorally sensible way.

So to reflect reality, we should actually start calling hymns “chants” instead. Won’t that muddy the waters?!

This is precisely right. Far from triggering a move to all-chant-all-the-time (an imaginary state of affairs that has never, ever existed in this country anyway), all that will happen is a dilution of what the word “chant” means. I would wager that the end result is at least as much a loss as a victory.

 

[TheMc]

Exactly. I have set out my views on this here. A teaser:

• “Mandatory chant” isn’t the rule in any other country or language (Italy included, perhaps especially). Why would Rome intend to create a different rule – one not even applied in Rome or at papal liturgies – for English-speaking countries?
• The Church simply does not operate this way – slyly changing one word in a document, saying nothing about it, with the secret plan that this will in fact mandate a massive, costly, disruptive liturgical overhaul for everybody. When they want to announce huge changes that many people would hate, they will announce them and give the priests on the ground an opportunity to prepare for them in a pastorally sensible way.

This is precisely right. Far from triggering a move to all-chant-all-the-time (an imaginary state of affairs that has never, ever existed in this country anyway), all that will happen is a dilution of what the word “chant” means. I would wager that the end result is at least as much a loss as a victory.

You’re right, and certainly I’m not saying that the church is doing what you mention (slyly changing one word…for everybody). But what I am saying is that it must mean something. Simply looking at the change, I think the reasonable conclusion is that even if it’s not mandating chant, it certainly is subtly urging us to start going that direction. Wouldn’t you agree? I wouldn’t take this change to mean that everything is changing overnight (however much I want that), but I would take it to mean nothing either.

 

[MarkThompson]

Simply looking at the change, I think the reasonable conclusion is that even if it’s not mandating chant, it certainly is subtly urging us to start going that direction. Wouldn’t you agree? I wouldn’t take this change to mean that everything is changing overnight (however much I want that), but I would take it to mean nothing either.

Your theory is one possibility; the other main possibility, I think, is that somebody was just very committed to a latinate translation using cognates wherever possible. There certainly seem to be more effective things that TPTB could have done to promote better music instead of this change, which, as I said, may actually work out counterproductively.

 

[TheMc]

Your theory is one possibility; the other main possibility, I think, is that somebody was just very committed to a latinate translation using cognates wherever possible. There certainly seem to be more effective things that TPTB could have done to promote better music instead of this change, which, as I said, may actually work out counterproductively.

Say what?

 

[I_Thirst]

Perhaps, but I think many will read it as a loophole anyway. The Entrance Chant will remain an Entrance Hymn – Gather Us In is always a hit around my neck of the woods. Just do it without instruments and it’s a chant.

It’s rare to run into a choir director who has actually been trained in Catholic liturgical music. Mention Palestrina and you’ll be corrected, “You mean pastrami.” We need deeper catechesis for our liturgical musicians.

The only time I’ve heard the entrance antiphon and communion antiphon is when they have been recited at Daily Mass. The entrance & communion hymns I’ve heard at Sunday Mass usually have nothing at all in common with the antiphons.

If you play the Six Degrees of Separation with some of our hymns, you’ll get to Kevin Bacon before you get to Jesus – unless of course “Jesus” or “bread” are in the “chant”.

 

[MarkThompson]

Say what?

Latinate

Cognate

TPTB

 

[Ohana]

Now boys, play nice.

 

[Elizium23]

Are there other Latin words that mean “hymn” or “song” that would be translated directly into those words?

Google translate suggests “hymnus” - is that correct?