E
E.E.N.S
Guest
And she still says the same thing. (Read VociMike’s comment above #227.)
- Status
V
VociMike
Guest
Nobody is (or should be) arguing for an exclusive mandate. That would clearly be in violation of the mind of the Church.
And at best, MS quotes SC regarding Gregorian chant regarding a subset of liturgies, those celebrated in Latin. That is not a statement that liturgies not celebrated in Latin are therefore free to ignore SC. Omission is not negation.
T
takers
Guest
Could someone give me an example of a ‘praise and worship’ song and an example of a Gregorian chant? I’ll admit that I’ve read a bit of this thread but am confused as to what constitutes ‘praise and worship’ and would like to know so I can form an opinon.
N
ncjohn
Guest
No, she doesn’t. “the music proper…” is a statement of exclusivity that is found nowhere in any Church document that I am aware of. Similar to a statement I saw a couple days ago that the organ was the only “sacred instrument”.
There is a huge difference between “especially suited” or “given pride of place”, which involves priority, and “the music proper”, though I think from your following statements that your statement might have just been bad wording and not intended to convey what it said. If that’s the case we may not be much out of agreement, though our understanding of what degree that “pride of place” might entail might differ substantially.
N
ncjohn
Guest
Paragraph 51 specifically talks about Masses not in Latin and states how the “heritage of sacred music” should be considered.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
In Sacramentum Caritatis it says, “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.” Neither this document, nor myself, says that Gregorian Chant are the only music to grace the Liturgy, but it is proper and it should take pride of place. With the fact that today in our Masses we see that maybe 1% of them use Gregorian Chant, I would dare say that we are nowhere close to giving Gregorian Chant the pride of place that the Church calls for.
Note: In the same paragraph quoted above (from SC), “Certainly as far as the liturgy is concerned, we cannot say that one song is as good as another.” To me this says that it is not just a matter of personal taste and preference, as another poster put it. Also, directly following that is, “Generic improvisation or the introduction of musical genres which fail to respect the meaning of the liturgy should be avoided.” I don’t know if my definition of comtemporary music is accurate, but much of what I consider contemporary would be addressed by said quote. Perhaps I am wrong.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
What is the heritage of sacred music in the US?
V
VociMike
Guest
Then I think we’re in substantial agreement. Gregorian chant is indeed the song proper to the Roman liturgy, but valid considerations would expect that Gregorian chant would be used more in Masses celebrated in Latin, while not being excluded in non-Latin Masses.
BTW, when MS says regarding celebrations in Latin, “Gregorian chant, as proper to the Roman liturgy, should be given pride of place, other things being equal” it is really affirming two separate statements. One is that Gregorian chant is indeed proper to the Roman liturgy (nothing said about Latin or vernacular, simply the Roman liturgy). The other is that it should be given pride of place, other things being equal. That “other things being equal” would tend to suggest more chant in a Latin Mass, and less (but not no) chant in a vernacular Mass.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I think we mostly agree on this, except possibly on two points, one of which I consider minor, the other I have to research. The first is when you make the statement, which is the same one made by E.E.N.S. that I disagree with, that it is “…the song proper…” That “the” implies an exclusivity never stated or intended and is completely different than the “pride of place” or “especially suited” that is in the documents. As with E.E.N.S., I tend to think that this is just a wording thing as you clearly seem to understand that the exclusivity doesn’t exist.
The second thing, which I have to research, is whether “Roman liturgy”, both in this document and the recent one, is meant to refer to the TLM or to include some other potential Latin liturgy (the N.O. did not yet exist at the time of this document of course), or just any Latin Rite liturgy that might include the vernacular. The fact that it is used exclusively under the “Masses celebrated in Latin” category, and is specifically omitted in the verncular section, would lead me to believe that it was indeed intended to apply only to Masses said in Latin, and probably only to the TLM–at least in MS. Again, I would have to further research on the usage in the new document.
Here I do disagree that it is intended to have any priority beyond the consideration of it being able to be “conveniently used” that is specified in the paragraph dealing with vernacular Masses. There is nothing in the wording of the Latin paragraph to indicate that that pride of place extends across those boundaries. That is why I tend to think that at least at that time that “Roman liturgy” almost certainly was meant to define either the TLM or the TLM plus any potential Latin liturgies.
The vernacular paragraph does not address chant at all, only the consideration of parts of the “heritage of sacred music” without specifying what parts. That clearly indicates to me that the intent was to try to work in at least enough Latin hymns that the heritage would not be lost.
E.E.N.S.:
I don’t see that heritage being any different in the U.S. than anywhere else. I would see it consisting of the Latin hymns that were sung at the TLM prior to Vatican II, including at least some use of the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and Kyrie. Our parish does mix in occasional Latin hymns, as do most parishes I’ve been a part of. Most I have been a part of also include the Sanctus, etc at least during Advent and Lent. I will admit that I’ve not encountered any N.O. parishes that used Chant, but I think that might be at least partly because they have been mostly smaller, and many rural parishes where the choir members are not trained in that kind of music, often struggling even to sound decent on a Marty Haugen song. I’ve heard the Ave Maria butchered enough to know I don’t want most of the choirs in the parishes around us to even think about trying Chant.
P
PaixGioiaAmor
Guest
N
ncjohn
Guest
While I answered that in my previous post–as it relates to the use of that term in the MS document–I was not doing so as a definition of what would constitute sacred music at this time.
MS defined sacred music as follows:
- It is to be hoped that pastors of souls, musicians and the faithful will gladly accept these norms and put them into practice, uniting their efforts to attain the true purpose of sacred music, "which is the glory of God and the sanctification of the faithful."1
(b) The following come under the title of sacred music here: Gregorian chant, sacred polyphony in its various forms both ancient and modern, sacred music for the organ and other approved instruments, and sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.3
Note that this includes “sacred popular music, be it liturgical or simply religious.”
It also makes the following comment in Paragraph 11, which takes into account the varying degrees of training and resources to be found in different parishes:
To have a more ornate form of singing and a more magnificent ceremonial is at times desirable when there are the resources available to carry them out properly; on the other hand it would be contrary to the true solemnity of the Liturgy if this were to lead to a part of the action being omitted, changed, or improperly performed.
As I said previously, there are an awful lot of choirs in small parishes who would butcher Gregorian Chant and thus jeopardize the solemnity of the liturgy by improperly performing them.
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Actually I can think of at least two documents off the top of my head that specifically say it is the proper song for the Liturgy; Tra le Sollecitudini by Pope Pius X and Sacramentum Caritatis by Pope Benedict XVI. Those same documents allow for other music to be used, without diminishing the proper-ness of Gregorian Chant. I think you are interpretting an exclusivity that isn’t meant to be absolute.
Gregorian Chant is proper (I know you don’t like that word) for both the NO and the ER. Another thing to consider is that the NO was not meant to be free from Latin in the first place. The use of the vernacular was intended to be used in parts of the Mass (such as the readings, and the prayers of the faithful, etc.) but not the entire Mass, even though it was allowed. As we see in Sacrosanctum Concilium:
*“36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.
2. But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters.”
*
E
E.E.N.S
Guest
Unfortunatly we have taken the exception (popular music) and made it the norm/proper (which should be Gregorian Chant).
You would be surprised at how easy it is to train people in Gregorian Chant. In fact, we were butchering the polyphony more often than the Chant, lol. As with anything worth doing it takes practice and hard work.
N
ncjohn
Guest
You may be right there. I can be something of a stickler about wording like that from doing legal interpretations for work. It is clear from its usage in *Sacramentum Caritatis *though, which again I have not yet read, that such an exclusivity is not intended though that wording would imply it.
As I said before, I’ll reserve judgment on that one pending what I find on what “Roman liturgy” is meant to define. In MS it’s pretty clear that it refers exclusively to Latin liturgies. I’m not sure if that intent is still there in *Sacramentum Caritatis *though. And BTW, “proper” doesn’t bother me at all when used by itself, as long as the exclusivity is removed.
There was already the consideration though that the vernacular was to be used, and that it may exceed what is specified here. That is why there are sections about experiments to be done, the commission to be set up to determine implementation, and delegation to “territorial authorities” to determine what would be best in their areas. By the time the implementation document came out, as in MS, there is already substantial provision made for the vernacular.
That “particular law” statement, as I understand it, was meant to provide for the fact that even if the Mass went to the vernacular, the use of Latin was not to be lost. I see this as why we still do have at the very least the Sanctus, Agnus Dei, and the Greek Kyrie still present at least some of the time.
Please don’t get me wrong. I’m not at all anti-tradition,nor am I anti-Latin though I prefer the verncular Mass. I can still recite most of the responses from the TLM from my growing up altar boy days. And I still know at least a couple verses of most of the more common Latin hymns. I also listen to Gregorian Chant on my computer CD player, though I admit to having no recollection of ever hearing it at Mass, even pre-Vatican II.
My only quibble is when people try to impose things that do not apply to the N.O. Mass. Even if some of them were in fact contemplated in the original Vatican II documents, the fact is that the implementation documents do not include them, and since those documents were ratified and are the working basis for the Mass, that means they are not required.
Was that a good thing? It depends on who you ask. But the reality is the reality. In the end, if enough people ask for something they’ll usually get it. Sometimes they’ll get it simply because a new priest comes in with a different philosophy and imposes it. If the people really do want this, or people feel it’s really important, then the education should be done to either convince the people to demand it, or to convince the priests that they should implement it because it’s important for us to not lose touch with it.
Perhaps *Sacramentum Caritatis *does something in that direction. I intend to take a look at it soon–though my new Harry Potter book came in yesterday and it has “pride of place” on my reading list right now.
Peace,
V
VociMike
Guest
I can assure you that “Roman liturgy” simply refers to the liturgy of the Roman Rite (as opposed to the two dozen or so other Rites within the Catholic Church), whether that liturgy be in Latin or in the vernacular. What is the Novus Ordo Missal called? It is called the Roman Missal, no matter what vernacular translation is used. By far the vast majority of all Masses said in English are Masses of the Roman liturgy, using the Roman Missal.
As a point of interest, the Roman liturgy is sometimes also called the Latin liturgy, and the Roman Rite called the Latin Rite, but it appears that SC, MS and Sacramentum Caritatis were all very careful not to talk about Gregorian chant being proper to the “Latin liturgy” to avoid precisely this confusion over whether “Latin liturgy” means only liturgy in the Latin language. The use of the term “Roman liturgy” instead seems clearly intended to avoid that too-narrow reading.
N
ncjohn
Guest
That’s where I’m going to have to research as I’m not at all convinced from the way those paragraphs are put together in MS that that is the case. The fact that both Gregorian Chant and “Roman Liturgy” are only mentioned in the paragraphs relating to Masses celebrated in Latin, with the vernacular paragraph totally separate and noting separate requirements, makes we wonder enough to track it down.
If you happen to have documentation on it that would save me the trouble, that would be great as my time is limited anyway. You may well be right, and if so I’m curious about the structuring of the paragraphs.
V
VociMike
Guest
I’m not sure what other documentation you need. The fact that the Roman Missal is named the Roman Missal, even when it’s printed in the vernacular, seems pretty conclusive. But you could also look at Sacrosanctum Concilium and note how it often calls for the Roman rite, or missal, to be altered this way or that way. Obviously these alterations did not take place only for liturgies and sacraments performed in Latin. They took place for liturgies and sacraments of the Roman Rite, regardless of language.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I guess I’m just not convinced that “Roman Missal” and “Roman Liturgy” are the same thing, though I’m not ruling out the possibility. SC might not have made a distinction, but that wouldn’t mean anything because at that time the extent of the changes to come was not known. MS, as the implementation document, does separate the changes and what is to be used where, and then uses the term “Roman Liturgy” only in the paragraph with regard to the Latin.
My reading of things, based on that very specific separation in the implementation documents, is that there is not only not a requirement for Chant in the vernacular Mass, but that the intent within the vernacular Mass was only to make specific attempts to retain some of the Latin heritage so that it would not be lost. That is also what I heard in seminars on the documents, though the question on “Roman Liturgy” was not addressed that I recall. And it certainly would seem to correspond with the way the implementation was handled as I’ve not run across Chant in any vernacular Mass, though I have seen it a couple times in Latin N.O. Masses.
We will be doing multiple sessions on Vatican II documents in my Lay Ministry program in the fall, so if I don’t find anything before that, I will certainly address the question at that time.
V
VociMike
Guest
Liturgiam Authenticam
“ON THE USE OF VERNACULAR LANGUAGES
IN THE PUBLICATION OF
THE BOOKS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY”
That alone is indisputable proof that “Roman Liturgy” refers to the vernacular as well as the Latin texts.
N
ncjohn
Guest
I’ll take a look, thanks. It may not be until next week that I can read it though as I’m leaving town this afternoon for the weekend and I’m fairly buried getting things ready at work before I go.
I assume you’re not implying that the title alone makes something clear, as the only thing I would read from the title is how vernacular was to be incorporated into a primarily Latin Mass, which was all that existed at that time, absent something in the document that states differently.
- Status