Vatican II

[OraLabora]

By saying that rite you can immediately drop a lot of novelties, introduce fine prayers and Chant and retire the superfluos EMHCs, altar girls and lectors.

Why do you need the old rite to introduce chant? Chant is being used with the OF Mass daily near where I live.

Daily. And for the Liturgy of the Hours as well.

Nor are there any novelties, EMHCs, altar girls (or any females in the sanctuary for that matter).

Get over it, the OF Mass is perfectly legitimate and perfectly able to carry on Catholic tradition.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

MODERATOR WARNING

One:

The Ordinary Form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Forms are not different rites. Please do not refer to them as such. They are two forms of the Roman Rite. It confuses non-Catholics or Eastern Catholics when Roman Catholics refer to them as rites.

Admittedly, there are some documents that have been mistranslated into English that use the word “rite” when the Latin uses the word “ritualis” meaning ritual, as in the “Communion rite at the mass” Notice lower case “r”. Read carefully before posting to avoid confusing others.

Please use the proper term used by the Holy See. If you cannot use the language of the Holy See, find another forum.

Two:

That which the Church allows is not illegal and may not be discouraged. You can disagree, but you may not discourage others from accepting it or making use of it. This too confuses non Roman Catholics.

 

[thewanderer]

Yes, you can say the new rite with Latin, chant, ad-orientem and minus altar girls, pop hymns and EMHCs. But it happens so rarely as to be non-existent for 99.9999% of Catholics. If you’re going to do that far, you might as well say the old rite. Catholics who haven’t seen the text of the old rite might get a few pleasant surprises, also.

By saying that rite you can immediately drop a lot of novelties, introduce fine prayers and Chant and retire the superfluos EMHCs, altar girls and lectors.

Then we have the recent changes to the text of the new rite, to reflect … the text of the old one!

I believe I see now why the new rite was introduced. We had to go through this, but not for the reasons mainstream Catholics think.

You seem to be falling prey to the error of thinking that reverence can be equated with particular externals. This is simply speaking not true. Reverence is an attribute of the person, it is an interior disposition. It will often find expression through externals, but ultimately it is something internal. Because of this I would like to make a distinction. You seem to imply that the reverence which we were discussing as important for the Mass will necessarily exist by bringing in Latin, ad orientem, chant etc and that it is necessarily lacking from any service without these. What makes a particular external to be reverent is the interior disposition of the people involved and the perception they have that this particular external is a way of showing the reverence which is a part of their interior disposition. I also realize that the externals not only spring from the internal disposition but can help foster the internal disposition, however, for that to occur, again, the externals must be something that the individual sees as a way of expressing reverence. So if someone does not see Latin as a way of expressing reverence then having the Mass in Latin will in no way help him to be more reverent, even though it would in fact aid someone who sees Latin as a way of expressing reverence. If you are willing to admit all of these distinctions then we will be a lot closer to coming to an agreement.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

You seem to be falling prey to the error of thinking that reverence can be equated with particular externals. This is simply speaking not true. Reverence is an attribute of the person, it is an interior disposition.

No one can see our internal disposition. All we can see is outer symbolism. The rite occurs in a public theatre with other people present. It is not personal prayer, in private.

Therefore it follows, in a mystical, public ritual, that that symbolism should convey the intention of that rite as impressively as possible. That’s what a mystical rite is all about.

The TLM conveys this exceedingly well. And, by curious fate, it is now possible to attend one without local or recent experimentation and thus, in peace.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

Don’t fall for the trap of thinking that ‘accretions’ can be stripped away leaving something better. It’s a bit like stripping down an old Rolls Royce to the bare essentials; she’ll still go, but what a disaster!

 

[Cat]

There are two sets of Grace within the context of Mass:

1. The Grace contained in the confected Eucharist.
2. The Grace emanating from a worthy celebration of the Mass itself, and this encompasses celebration skills, music versus no music, musical quality, vestments, vessels, etc. The externals, which are not intrinsic to the Mass, but which are nevertheless extremely important. I believe also in this group is the Grace that flows from the completion of the sacrifice itself, that is, the Grace that flows as soon as the priest receives Holy Communion that he just consecrated, and under both species. (It is possible to confect the Eucharist without completing the sacrifice.)

The Grace contained in the Eucharist is unlimited. One might naturally think that since this is so, the Grace of no. 2 above is not necessary, that it is superfluous. This is not so. Our receptivity to Grace is limited. We can only receive so much Grace from the Eucharist given our fallen nature. That isn’t to say that it isn’t “enough,” it is to say that because we are fallen beings, we cannot receive all of the Grace from the Eucharist. It is therefore necessary to always celebrate as worthy and dignified a Mass as possible, given the circumstances of the place and people and the liturgical rank of the Mass being celebrated.

We should not become scrupulous with these outward things, but we must also not allow ourselves to think that they are simply nice-to-have add-ons that don’t make a difference. They affect the Grace to be received and they manipulate the receptivity of the Grace.

For example, Gregorian Chant is aesthetically superior to discopop, plain and simple. Can people still like discopop? Of course. But Gregorian Chant is clearly the preferred music and is aesthetically superior. Whether or not people like it, the beauty of God contained within it is greater than the beauty of God contained within discopop.

Where did you pick up the term “discopop?”

Can you give some examples of a hymn used in OF Masses that is “discopop?”

I think the word "discopop is made up by you or by some other blogger. I’ll grant that it’s possible that the term does exist among music instructors or among musicians, since a lot of musical styles are “mixed breeds” that combine several different genres.

But I think you will have a hard time naming a “discopop” song or hymn used in many OF Masses.

Disco is music with a strong driving beat, which could mean that many Bach or baroque pieces are “disco” music, except for the fact that disco is written specifically to dance to.

Pop music is a little harder to define as a “style”, since it is music of any style that has mass appeal; i.e., is popular with many people. According to that definition, Te Deum would be a pop song! Over the years, some very interesting pieces have become “pop” music, including Gregorian chant. But I’ll grant that it’s generally understood that “pop” music has a suggestion of “rock”, although much of it is not rock at all. The main thing that makes music “pop” music is that it gets played on the radio and people like it.

Many of the hymns written in the last 40 years are not disco or pop, but are closer to folk music, or are merely contemporary hymns with no definable style other than “suitable for singing in church or other religious settings only, not suitable for mainstream or secular use.”

What we all need to remember is that at this point, many the contemporary hymns are still included in hymnals and missalettes, which means that they are STILL approved by the Catholic Church for use in the Mass.

How do people who attend the EF Mass know what is being sung in the OF Mass?

 

[YoungTradCath]

Where did you pick up the term “discopop?”

Can you give some examples of a hymn used in OF Masses that is “discopop?”

I think the word "discopop is made up by you or by some other blogger. I’ll grant that it’s possible that the term does exist among music instructors or among musicians, since a lot of musical styles are “mixed breeds” that combine several different genres.

But I think you will have a hard time naming a “discopop” song or hymn used in many OF Masses.

Disco is music with a strong driving beat, which could mean that many Bach or baroque pieces are “disco” music, except for the fact that disco is written specifically to dance to.

Pop music is a little harder to define as a “style”, since it is music of any style that has mass appeal; i.e., is popular with many people. According to that definition, Te Deum would be a pop song! Over the years, some very interesting pieces have become “pop” music, including Gregorian chant. But I’ll grant that it’s generally understood that “pop” music has a suggestion of “rock”, although much of it is not rock at all. The main thing that makes music “pop” music is that it gets played on the radio and people like it.

Many of the hymns written in the last 40 years are not disco or pop, but are closer to folk music, or are merely contemporary hymns with no definable style other than “suitable for singing in church or other religious settings only, not suitable for mainstream or secular use.”

What we all need to remember is that at this point, many the contemporary hymns are still included in hymnals and missalettes, which means that they are STILL approved by the Catholic Church for use in the Mass.

How do people who attend the EF Mass know what is being sung in the OF Mass?

For the record, I picked up this “discopop” word from an earlier poster in this thread. Rather than use a different word and spend time relating, I just continued with it.

And unfortunately, I do not attend the EF often. There isn’t one here. Mass ended about an hour ago, they’re screeching on the piano since the organist had to move, the “hymns” end up sounding like butchered Gregorian to me, that is, they are basically unaccompanied since the pianist tends to decide to just stop playing halfway through. I’m going to propose a Gregorian Introit and Communion for next Sunday since the razed hymns we’re doing don’t far off.

 

[thewanderer]

No one can see our internal disposition. All we can see is outer symbolism. The rite occurs in a public theatre with other people present. It is not personal prayer, in private.

Therefore it follows, in a mystical, public ritual, that that symbolism should convey the intention of that rite as impressively as possible. That’s what a mystical rite is all about.

The TLM conveys this exceedingly well. And, by curious fate, it is now possible to attend one without local or recent experimentation and thus, in peace.

Why does it matter whether or not people can see our internal disposition? We were talking about reverence. If you are going to talk about reverence and what makes something to be reverent you need to make sure you are clear on what exactly reverence itself is, then you can go on to talk about what things are reverent and what arent. Thats why I brought up those distinctions, to make sure we are on the same page as to what revverencce itself actually is.

Don’t fall for the trap of thinking that ‘accretions’ can be stripped away leaving something better. It’s a bit like stripping down an old Rolls Royce to the bare essentials; she’ll still go, but what a disaster!

I have not yet at all talked about my own opinion as to what is good or bador evven better at Mass. As to whether ‘accretions’ can be strripped away leaving something better, that depends, itsnot something you can put a blanket statement on one way or another. I am just as wary of people who claim that one should strip everything without paying any attention as to whether or not it is valuable as I am of one who claims that one is not allowed to remove anything regardless of whether or not it is actully helpful for people. So if by your above statement you mean to claim that the fact something is in the Mass necessarily means that it ought to remain then I must respectfully disagree with you. If however all that you mean is that one should not wildly make changes and remove things without careful thought as to what will actually be beneficial for the community then I am in agreement.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Why does it matter whether or not people can see our internal disposition? We were talking about reverence. If you are going to talk about reverence and what makes something to be reverent you need to make sure you are clear on what exactly reverence itself is, then you can go on to talk about what things are reverent and what arent. Thats why I brought up those distinctions, to make sure we are on the same page as to what revverencce itself actually is.

I have not yet at all talked about my own opinion as to what is good or bador evven better at Mass. As to whether ‘accretions’ can be strripped away leaving something better, that depends, itsnot something you can put a blanket statement on one way or another. I am just as wary of people who claim that one should strip everything without paying any attention as to whether or not it is valuable as I am of one who claims that one is not allowed to remove anything regardless of whether or not it is actully helpful for people. So if by your above statement you mean to claim that the fact something is in the Mass necessarily means that it ought to remain then I must respectfully disagree with you. If however all that you mean is that one should not wildly make changes and remove things without careful thought as to what will actually be beneficial for the community then I am in agreement.

Because what we see rubs off on us. Even if a person is not feeling particularly reverent, if he makes a reverent gesture or does an outwardly reverent act, it reinforces the perceived reverence, which rubs off on other people. For example, if a kid is feeling bratty, he can choose to not make the Sign of the Cross. But if he does anyway, even out of habit, and even if he is feeling bratty, then it serves in his small way to reinforce and confirm the fact that everyone else is doing it. If the little girl sitting in the pew behind him sees him not do it, on the other hand, she may feel compelled for whatever reason not to do it.

Perceived reverence is extremely important to a community. Don’t get me wrong, a true sense of reverence does need to be in the hearts of people, but that reverence must be shown outwardly and, additionally, it must be shown even if, for whatever reason, there is no inward sense of reverence felt by a particular person.

Let us take the example of a priest. Priests celebrate Mass, on average, at least once a day. Priests, just like everyone else in the world, do get burned out eventually. Not necessarily from their priestly ministry, but from stress, anxiety, whatever. However, it is absolutely inexcusable, short of having a mental breakdown in which case he probably shouldn’t be saying Mass in the first place, for a priest to start to act like an irreverent slob at the altar. “Feeling reverent inside” does not excuse him. He must try his best to be a bastion of outward reverence for the sake of the community whether or not he feels it inside and regardless of if he is feeling bad.

Now, by this response I do not mean to make an apologetic for this or that liturgical practice (communion on the tongue kneeling, whatever). I just mean this response to show why in addition to feeling reverent inside, it is also very important to have a reverent image even if one does not feel reverent on a particular day. A priest must exude reverence for his people insofar as he is possible, and we must exude reverence for each others sake insofar as possible, and for the same reason: perceived reverence, or a lack thereof, rubs off, regardless of the internal disposition of Sally or Jim.

 

[liturgyluver]

For the record, I picked up this “discopop” word from an earlier poster in this thread. Rather than use a different word and spend time relating, I just continued with it.

And unfortunately, I do not attend the EF often. There isn’t one here. Mass ended about an hour ago, they’re screeching on the piano since the organist had to move, the “hymns” end up sounding like butchered Gregorian to me, that is, they are basically unaccompanied since the pianist tends to decide to just stop playing halfway through. I’m going to propose a Gregorian Introit and Communion for next Sunday since the razed hymns we’re doing don’t far off.

It sounds to me that you have an exceptionally poor music ministry in your parish - how can any church function without an organist? Surely there must at least be one parish nearby with choir using plainchant and/or polyphonic settings, and where traditional hymns are selected?

 

[YoungTradCath]

It sounds to me that you have an exceptionally poor music ministry in your parish - how can any church function without an organist? Surely there must at least be one parish nearby with choir using plainchant and/or polyphonic settings, and where traditional hymns are selected?

I live in a small city in the southeastern US (historically Catholicism here is a minority religion, but evangelization has been working very rapidly in the recent past, of which I am a product ). There are two Catholic churches. The first and older is the one which I attend out of preference. The second was originally a “satellite parish” of the larger one intended to minister evangelically to minorities in the 1930s since the larger church is rather far away. Both are still active but are now combined into one parish as of last year with the intention of building a single, larger church. My town is also a military town. The previous organist is in the military, and he relocated a few weeks ago.

My parish is quite orthodox and the people are very understanding. I have great confidence that they wouldn’t flinch a bit if Gregorian propers were introduced. Some may not like it, but these people are very understanding. The problem isn’t orthodoxy, it’s liturgical complacency, mediocrity, and I might say ignorance. The community life is very good, although there is a bit of a feeling of malaise. On top of that, Father is not a graceful celebrant. His movements don’t seem careful at all, I suppose I could say. I do not doubt his inner convictions whatsoever, but the way he carries himself at Mass is, no kidding, the way he carries himself at the parish picnic.

We actually have four priests (religious) and two of them are quite good celebrants, and one has a sublime chanting voice. Unfortunately neither of the two, as far as I can tell, celebrate Mass publicly on Sundays! The fourth is very old and is great to talk to.

Perhaps the nearest parish past ours is 45 miles away and I do not have the best transportation, unfortunately. However, I will be moving shortly. Until then I think I will attend the music-less Mass at 7:15 on Sundays from now on.

So yes, our music ministry is exceptionally poor. You live in London; what a liturgical joy that must be!

 

[thewanderer]

Because what we see rubs off on us. Even if a person is not feeling particularly reverent, if he makes a reverent gesture or does an outwardly reverent act, it reinforces the perceived reverence, which rubs off on other people. For example, if a kid is feeling bratty, he can choose to not make the Sign of the Cross. But if he does anyway, even out of habit, and even if he is feeling bratty, then it serves in his small way to reinforce and confirm the fact that everyone else is doing it. If the little girl sitting in the pew behind him sees him not do it, on the other hand, she may feel compelled for whatever reason not to do it.

Perceived reverence is extremely important to a community. Don’t get me wrong, a true sense of reverence does need to be in the hearts of people, but that reverence must be shown outwardly and, additionally, it must be shown even if, for whatever reason, there is no inward sense of reverence felt by a particular person.

Let us take the example of a priest. Priests celebrate Mass, on average, at least once a day. Priests, just like everyone else in the world, do get burned out eventually. Not necessarily from their priestly ministry, but from stress, anxiety, whatever. However, it is absolutely inexcusable, short of having a mental breakdown in which case he probably shouldn’t be saying Mass in the first place, for a priest to start to act like an irreverent slob at the altar. “Feeling reverent inside” does not excuse him. He must try his best to be a bastion of outward reverence for the sake of the community whether or not he feels it inside and regardless of if he is feeling bad.

Now, by this response I do not mean to make an apologetic for this or that liturgical practice (communion on the tongue kneeling, whatever). I just mean this response to show why in addition to feeling reverent inside, it is also very important to have a reverent image even if one does not feel reverent on a particular day. A priest must exude reverence for his people insofar as he is possible, and we must exude reverence for each others sake insofar as possible, and for the same reason: perceived reverence, or a lack thereof, rubs off, regardless of the internal disposition of Sally or Jim.

I’m sorry if you misunderstood what I was saying. I was not trying to say external signs of reverence are unimportant, in fact, if you look at my previous posts to RogerDeCourcy I specifically mentioned the fact that seeing other people perform external acts which one associates with reverence can help one to actually become reverently disposed internally. My last response to RogerDeCourcy was specifically asking why he was trying to move to talk about the externals and brushing aside the point I was trying to make that we must recognize, if we are going to get anywhere, that reverence is ultimately an internal disposition, as though the fact that reverence is ultimately internal is something that can be ignored as unimportant.

 

[liturgyluver]

I live in a small city in the southeastern US (historically Catholicism here is a minority religion, but evangelization has been working very rapidly in the recent past, of which I am a product ). There are two Catholic churches. The first and older is the one which I attend out of preference. The second was originally a “satellite parish” of the larger one intended to minister evangelically to minorities in the 1930s since the larger church is rather far away. Both are still active but are now combined into one parish as of last year with the intention of building a single, larger church. My town is also a military town. The previous organist is in the military, and he relocated a few weeks ago.

My parish is quite orthodox and the people are very understanding. I have great confidence that they wouldn’t flinch a bit if Gregorian propers were introduced. Some may not like it, but these people are very understanding. The problem isn’t orthodoxy, it’s liturgical complacency, mediocrity, and I might say ignorance. The community life is very good, although there is a bit of a feeling of malaise. On top of that, Father is not a graceful celebrant. His movements don’t seem careful at all, I suppose I could say. I do not doubt his inner convictions whatsoever, but the way he carries himself at Mass is, no kidding, the way he carries himself at the parish picnic.

We actually have four priests (religious) and two of them are quite good celebrants, and one has a sublime chanting voice. Unfortunately neither of the two, as far as I can tell, celebrate Mass publicly on Sundays! The fourth is very old and is great to talk to.

Perhaps the nearest parish past ours is 45 miles away and I do not have the best transportation, unfortunately. However, I will be moving shortly. Until then I think I will attend the music-less Mass at 7:15 on Sundays from now on.

So yes, our music ministry is exceptionally poor. You live in London; what a liturgical joy that must be!

Interesting background - I hope it all works out right for you all. There are some churcs with very fine music in London,

 

[clem456]

I

live in a small city in the southeastern US (historically Catholicism here is a minority religion, but evangelization has been working very rapidly in the recent past, of which I am a product :) ).

This brings joy to the heart. The post Vatican 2 Catholic Church is evidently alive and well , and converting people!

My parish is quite orthodox and the people are very understanding. I have great confidence that they wouldn’t flinch a bit if Gregorian propers were introduced. Some may not like it, but these people are very understanding. The problem isn’t orthodoxy, it’s liturgical complacency, mediocrity, and I might say ignorance. The community life is very good, although there is a bit of a feeling of malaise. On top of that, Father is not a graceful celebrant. His movements don’t seem careful at all, I suppose I could say. I do not doubt his inner convictions whatsoever, but the way he carries himself at Mass is, no kidding, the way he carries himself at the parish picnic.

After what you said in the first paragraph, why are you worried about any of this? You have found your home in the Church in order to worry about the gracefullness of Father’s movements??

So yes, our music ministry is exceptionally poor.

Just don’t do that, please? People are not perfect. To progress in conversion takes an acceptance of one another’s faults and idiosyncracies.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I

This brings joy to the heart. The post Vatican 2 Catholic Church is evidently alive and well , and converting people!

After what you said in the first paragraph, why are you worried about any of this? You have found your home in the Church in order to worry about the gracefullness of Father’s movements??

Just don’t do that, please? People are not perfect. To progress in conversion takes an acceptance of one another’s faults and idiosyncracies.
Yes, indeed! Although from what I hear, our diocese was one of the most conservative in the country in implementing VII. There are a number of the most liturgically exemplary parishes in this Catholic wasteland state (10 or so) which basically completely retained liturgical patrimony, and in the last two years two new parishes have started to offer the EF regularly, and the pastors of all three of these particular parishes make their Catholic school students learn the entire order and Ordinary parts of the Mass in Latin. They then practice by chanting regularly for school Masses. The cathedral choir director has also started three new Latin and English plainchant children’s choirs!

Now, secondly, I am quite worried about my parish’s situation because an orthodox parish cannot sustain itself on weak liturgy. It is basically impossible long-term. I feel the one thing liturgically sustaining us now is Benediction and adoration, for Mass is just painful.

 

[pnewton]

And unfortunately, I do not attend the EF often. There isn’t one here. Mass ended about an hour ago, they’re screeching on the piano since the organist had to move, the “hymns” end up sounding like butchered Gregorian to me,

I understand the reason why your parish struggles musically, as you explain later. That being said, do you really think it charitable to speak thus about those who may well be the best available for at this time in this parish? How would you feel if someone spoke this way about you behind your back when you were put in a situation and had to step up and do your best?

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

For the record, I picked up this “discopop” word from an earlier poster in this thread.

A better term would be ‘Ecclesi-easy Listening’.

Another benefit of Chant is that with a Liber Usualis all the music is there for the mass in question; choose an extra hymn for the offetory and communion and you’re good to go.

Also, and this is the most important bit: it helps stop most dominant personality in your choir dictating what you will hear in your local church every Sunday for 30 years.

I had the peculiar experience of going back to a church I hadn’t been in in 30 years to an OF mass around Christmas last year. The same bland hymns were being sung and they didn’t even suit the Mass!

 

[liturgyluver]

A better term would be ‘Ecclesi-easy Listening’.

Another benefit of Chant is that with a Liber Usualis all the music is there for the mass in question; choose an extra hymn for the offetory and communion and you’re good to go.

Also, and this is the most important bit: it helps stop most dominant personality in your choir dictating what you will hear in your local church every Sunday for 30 years.

I had the peculiar experience of going back to a church I hadn’t been in in 30 years to an OF mass around Christmas last year. The same bland hymns were being sung and they didn’t even suit the Mass!

I think this is one of the problems with music in many Catholic Churches: the Parish Priest shows no interest at all in one of the most important areas of the liturgy. In abdicating this important area of responsibility, this then sometimes allows someone who is ill-suited to the task to pick their favourite, rather than most appropriate hymns. I am not necessairly saying the PP must chose the music every week, but they should at least be absolutely clear about their expectations.

I have noticed that at the few Catholic parishes where this is done well, mass is often conducted more reverently, and people join in with the singing (well, at least 50% of them!!)

 

[OraLabora]

A better term would be ‘Ecclesi-easy Listening’.

Another benefit of Chant is that with a Liber Usualis all the music is there for the mass in question; choose an extra hymn for the offetory and communion and you’re good to go.

Also, and this is the most important bit: it helps stop most dominant personality in your choir dictating what you will hear in your local church every Sunday for 30 years.

I had the peculiar experience of going back to a church I hadn’t been in in 30 years to an OF mass around Christmas last year. The same bland hymns were being sung and they didn’t even suit the Mass!

The Liber Usualis is only usually applicable to the EF Mass although you can find most of the required chants for the OF Mass at least for years A and C in it. The licit and current chant books for the OF Mass are the Graduale Romanum and the Graduale Simplex. The former is for accomplished choirs and contains most of what the Liber Usualis has but adapted to the OF Mass and the three-year cycle of Gospel readings. The entire Kyriale of the Liber and all of the Credos are there.

Even better is the Graduale Triplex which is identical to the Graduale Romanum but also includes above and below the staff, the neumes of Laon and St. Gall respectively for a more accurate interpretation of the Chant (for the EF fans, there’s the Graduel Neumé of Solesmes).

The Graduale Simplex contains simpler chant settings for the propers, borrowing somewhat on the antiphons and psalm tones of the Divine Office, along with a simplified Kyriale. It’s intended for smaller churches with a less experienced choir.

You see Gregorian chant for the OF, or for the modern Liturgy of the Hours for that matter, is not dead. It’s alive and well courtesy of the Benedictines of Solesmes and their “Atelier paléographique” who publish all the required books which are used throughout the Church.

In my province there are choirs in Montreal, Sherbrooke (to which I belong), Quebec City and Chicoutimi that use chant regularly at OF Masses; plus there are others in Ontario and elsewhere.

The EF is not required for Gregorian chant. Nor was Gregorian chant the exclusive music of the EF; many popular vernacular hymns were often sung at the EF. Therefore the EF will not guarantee chant’s return any more than the OF will assure its demise. There’s no guarantee that if the EF became normative again that all of its music would be chant, nor any guarantee that no banal popular hymns would creep in. One mustn’t confuse the form of the Mass with its musical selections, nor must one falsely assume that modern hymns wouldn’t creep into the EF Mass, given modern trends, if it became normative. There is nothing in the EF Mass rubrics that I know of, that prevent a sung Mass with popular hymns “selected” by the local conference of bishops as happens now, except perhaps for the Ordinary; but then the Ordinary can be recited too.

Music has nothing to do with the form of the Mass. In fact by the 17th century chant had been completely adulterated and unrecognizable with many additions and accretions of dubious quality. Chant was revived in the mid-late 19th century by the monks of Solesmes under the direction of Dom Prosper Gueranger. Pius X commissioned the first Graduale Romanum, Vatican Edition, in 1908 which Solesmes produced. It was therefore at the beginning of the 20th century that Gregorian chant underwent a revival and re-application to the Mass. What we know as Gregorian chant at the Mass today comes from that 1908 gradual with refinements along the way. We cannot for sure say that the way chant is sung today is identical to how it was sung in Carolingian times. It is a modern interpretation of it. Which doesn’t take away from its beauty or historical significance.

But it’s wrong to assume that chant as it is sung since the early 20th century represents exactly chant how it was sung in Carolingian times or earlier when most were composed. There were many controversies and schools of interpretation when it underwent its revival in the 19th century, in particular the major conflict over the Mocquereau and Pothier schools of interpretation (the latter “won” and formed the basis for the new chant books of the 20th century).

A little bit of rigorous historical research would put paid to the theory that the EF is somehow the cure-all for today’s musical banality or for that matter for liturgical abuse in general. The EF is what it is today because it is lovingly preserved by societies like the FSSP. Not because it is the EF.

 

[RogerDeCourcy]

The default for the EF was Mass 8 up to about 1970, I understand. I don’t know why you thought a history lesson was apt. The default for the OF is bland folky modern hymns; everything before 1970 ditched. It is the norm.

Is the experiment done yet?