Why isn't there a Roman Hymnal?

[liturgyluver]

Yes, but the missal of Paul VI eliminated the distinction between “sung celebrations” and “read celebrations (low mass).” Thus SC’s provision that Gregorian Chant is to hold pride of place can only reasonably be held to apply to the Mass in general and not just to “sung celebrations in Latin” after 1969.

I don’t agree that one cancels out the other. One could also just say that Gregorian chant should only have pride of place, all things being equal (of course) where mass is celebrated in Latin, or even now that sung celebrations in Latin are not part of the church norms that this requirement is superceded! All things being equal means of course that the ecclesial authorities need to balance this with the very firm requirement for the people to participate in the liturgy and to foster singing - some congregations can, others can’t.

Where the vernacular has been introduced into the celebration of Mass, the local Ordinaries will judge whether it may be opportune to preserve one or more Masses celebrated in Latin

 

[PietroPaolo]

I don’t agree that one cancels out the other. One could also just say that Gregorian chant should only have pride of place, all things being equal (of course) where mass is celebrated in Latin, or even now that sung celebrations in Latin are not part of the church norms that this requirement is superceded! All things being equal means of course that the ecclesial authorities need to balance this with the very firm requirement for the people to participate in the liturgy and to foster singing - some congregations can, others can’t.

Where the vernacular has been introduced into the celebration of Mass, the local Ordinaries will judge whether it may be opportune to preserve one or more Masses celebrated in Latin

You are ripping that quote out of context and twisting its meaning. “one or more Masses celebrated in Latin” means the entire Mass being celebrated in Latin not using Latin during a liturgy that also features the vernacular. Vatican II was clear on the importance of using Latin in the liturgy (again see SC). The idea that the clear teaching of both SC and MS is overruled by the loss of the distinction between high and low Mass is patently absurd. Do you have any citation of any Church document that suggests or recommends the abandonment of both Gregorian Chant and Latin to back up this interpretation? You also are conflating “people participating in the liturgy” with “singing” as if the only or even the primary way the faithful participate in the liturgy is through singing hymns, which also is not Church teaching.

 

[liturgyluver]

You are ripping that quote out of context and twisting its meaning. “one or more Masses celebrated in Latin” means the entire Mass being celebrated in Latin not using Latin during a liturgy that also features the vernacular. Vatican II was clear on the importance of using Latin in the liturgy (again see SC). The idea that the clear teaching of both SC and MS is overruled by the loss of the distinction between high and low Mass is patently absurd. Do you have any citation of any Church document that suggests or recommends the abandonment of both Gregorian Chant and Latin to back up this interpretation? You also are conflating “people participating in the liturgy” with “singing” as if the only or even the primary way the faithful participate in the liturgy is through singing hymns, which also is not Church teaching.

I could easily accuse you of doing the same to be honest. You have chosen to re-interpret church documents in a particular way to support your argument about Gregorian chant. If your interpretation was correct then our Bishops would ensure that it was used much more frequently than it is. Even in the great and ancient Cathedrals in Europe and in traditional churches it is not the norm - and never will be. I happen to love chanting the Psalms in Gregorian Chant but the opportunities to do so are limited.

I quoted the texts which clearly show that the Church expects the failthful to sing in mass and the reasons for this. I quoted the texts that explain what active participation means in the context of music in the liturgy.

I really only came on here to correct the mistaken statements that the church regards the propers as more important than hymns which is patently not the case. Where hymns are scheduled in the mass, the Church expects us to sing them.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I could easily accuse you of doing the same to be honest…

Whether or not the bishops are implementing the teaching of the Church and what the teaching of Church is on these matters are two different questions. I’ve pointed out the Church’s teaching on the use of both Latin and Chant. To come back with “it isn’t the norm” proves nothing and to claim that “it never will be the norm” both proves nothing and is ridiculous. You also seem to ignore everything said by the Church since the sixties on this issue, as if 1969 marked the end of the discussion on the meaning of “active participation,” the place of Latin in the liturgical life of the Church, or the primacy of Chant at Mass. Nothing could be further from the truth! Certainly, you are familiar with the writings of our beloved Pope Emeritus on the liturgy? Does he call for universal hymn singing as the only authentic way of participating in the liturgy?

Finally, you are simply wrong. The Church does in fact regard the propers as more important than hymns which can merely be substituted for the propers, but are never parts of the Mass itself. To claim that hymns are somehow equivalent to the propers ignores the preferences set out in the GIRM, for example:

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 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.

Where we clearly see that the proper chant is the first option, while singing a hymn falls under the fourth option if (and only if) you consider the hymn to be “another liturgical chant suited to the sacred action” which clearly many of the hymns in use today are not. We also see, in the excerpt above, that the choir may sing alone, something you are claiming would prohibit “active participation” of the faithful.

 

[liturgyluver]

Whether or not the bishops are implementing the teaching of the Church and what the teaching of Church is on these matters are two different questions. I’ve pointed out the Church’s teaching on the use of both Latin and Chant. To come back with “it isn’t the norm” proves nothing and to claim that “it never will be the norm” both proves nothing and is ridiculous. You also seem to ignore everything said by the Church since the sixties on this issue, as if 1969 marked the end of the discussion on the meaning of “active participation,” the place of Latin in the liturgical life of the Church, or the primacy of Chant at Mass. Nothing could be further from the truth! Certainly, you are familiar with the writings of our beloved Pope Emeritus on the liturgy? Does he call for universal hymn singing as the only authentic way of participating in the liturgy?

Finally, you are simply wrong. The Church does in fact regard the propers as more important than hymns which can merely be substituted for the propers, but are never parts of the Mass itself. To claim that hymns are somehow equivalent to the propers ignores the preferences set out in the GIRM, for example:

Where we clearly see that the proper chant is the first option, while singing a hymn falls under the fourth option if (and only if) you consider the hymn to be “another liturgical chant suited to the sacred action” which clearly many of the hymns in use today are not. We also see, in the excerpt above, that the choir may sing alone, something you are claiming would prohibit “active participation” of the faithful.

The world didn’t stop in 1969 - since then Music in Catholic Worship and Sing to the Lord , in the US - reinforce the points I was making. You may also be surprised to know that the Missal chants are only an option - one option out of four - in the US. In the Universal GIRM they are not even mentioned. You will see that in Sing to the Lord (115) the abandonment of the Proper in place of hymnody is affirmed as normative practice.

I didn’t say that the choir alone is not allowed to sing - my own parish regularly has a polyphonic setting of the Gloria and Agnus Dei, but the congregation is still expected to unite their voices with the Priest to Christ in the other liturgical elements including the hymns, which as I said earlier in the UK come from an authorised hymn book oand hymn lectionary designed to fit the season and readings). Have a lovely weekend.

 

[Greg_N]

Even in the great and ancient Cathedrals in Europe and in traditional churches it is not the norm - and never will be.

Don’t bet on it.
The only place I find fellow devout youth are at parishes with a strong Latin Mass community… not to mention, the work of Dan Schutte and Marty Haugen are anything but timeless.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Thread off topic

CLOSED