The Motu Proprio Musical Frenzy

The New Liturgical Movement ^ | August 5, 2007 | Jeffrey Tucker

[maryz]

So what’s the Pressing Need for Speed

Like I said, getting to work. I was remembering a novel, set about 1900 -- Episcopal household, Catholic servants going to daily Mass. No mention of music -- and the servants had to get back to fix breakfast.

[Claud]

I've been trying to track the specific indults down myself. I know for a fact there was one for the Chinese missions that I saw in an old book at a seminary library...I dunno if it is referenced online. And propers and ordinaries in the vernacular (i.e. Mohawk, Algonquin, Micmac) were used in almost every single Indian mission in the Northeast.

Here's Musicae Sacrae from Pius XII in 1955, it's not an indult but you can see that he takes a rather different tack than the one that Pius X expressed:

62. As We have said before, besides those things that are intimately associated with the Church's sacred liturgy, there are also popular religious hymns which derive their origin from the liturgical chant itself. Most of these are written in the language of the people. Since these are closely related to the mentality and temperament of individual national groups, they differ considerably among themselves according to the character of different races and localities.

63. If hymns of this sort are to bring spiritual fruit and advantage to the Christian people, they must be in full conformity with the doctrine of the Catholic faith. They must also express and explain that doctrine accurately. Likewise they must use plain language and simple melody and must be free from violent and vain excess of words. Despite the fact that they are short and easy, they should manifest a religious dignity and seriousness. When they are fashioned in this way these sacred canticles, born as they are from the most profound depths of the people's soul, deeply move the emotions and spirit and stir up pious sentiments. When they are sung at religious rites by a great crowd of people singing as with one voice, they are powerful in raising the minds of the faithful to higher things.

64. As we have written above, such hymns cannot be used in Solemn High Masses without the express permission of the Holy See. Nevertheless at Masses that are not sung solemnly these hymns can be a powerful aid in keeping the faithful from attending the Holy Sacrifice like dumb and idle spectators. They can help to make the faithful accompany the sacred services both mentally and vocally and to join their own piety to the prayers of the priest. This happens when these hymns are properly adapted to the individual parts of the Mass, as We rejoice to know is being done in many parts of the Catholic world.

Pius XII also finally gave permission for the German singmesse, which had been stubbornly going on for centuries even though I don't think the permission was ever formally granted, and even though it was severely reproved by Pius X. I will continue to do some digging, but I do think Pius X was somewhat of an anomaly in his absolute insistence against vernacular hymnody.

[Claud]

Hi ninenot:

Here are a bunch of citations I found online....they all are referenced to the particular documents in the Acts of the office of the Propaganda—I’ve included the relevant footnotes below.

You can find this article here:

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=2786

-Claud

—begin excerpt-—

Another example of the flexibility of which the Roman rite is capable is the privilege granted for the use of Chinese as a liturgical language. History records in the fourteenth century that the first Franciscan missionary to China, John of Monte Corvino, used the vernacular in the Liturgy.26 Pope Paul V, in a brief of June 27, 1615, granted the same privilege to Jesuit missionaries.27 As recently as 1949, the privilege to use the Chinese literary language in the Liturgy was granted by the Holy Office.28 When conditions return to normal in China, and when Rome finally has approved a completed Chinese-Latin missal, this decree will take effect in all parts of that country.

Still further concessions have been granted:

a) During the fourteenth century the Roman Liturgy in its Dominican variant was translated into Greek for use by the Dominican missionaries in Greece.29

b) Permission had been granted to celebrate the Dominican Liturgy in the Armenian classical language in Armenia.30

c) At the end of the sixteenth century missionaries of India of the Latin rite were allowed to celebrate Mass in Syriac.31

d) In the seventeenth century the Discalced Carmelites were granted permission to use Arabic in their mission foundation in Persia.32

e) In the seventeenth century the Theatine Clerics were granted permission to use Georgian or Armenian in their mission foundation in Georgia.33

f) In the nineteenth century the Franciscans in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Arabic.34

g) In 1958, an indult was granted India to use Hindi.35

h) Five Latin priests in the Holy Land were granted permission to use Hebrew.36

i) In 1959, the Holy See renewed Germany’s privilege to use the vernacular in the Epistle and Gospel after they are recited in Latin.37

FOOTNOTES

27 Collectanea S. Congregationis de Propaganda Fide, 1 (Rome, 1907), 70, n. 1.

28 Ultime Foglie, Ricordi e Pensieri Unione Missionaria Del Clero in Italia (Rome, 1953), pp. 376-380.

29 Bullarium Ordinis Fratrum Praedicatorum, II (1281-1430), (Rome, 1730), p. 370.

30 Bullarium Pontif. S. C. de Prop. Fide III, 388 (1840). There is reference here to a letter of Pope Benedict XIV to the Secretary of the Propaganda, Nicholas Lercari, dated Dec. 29, 1755, in which he forbids the Armenians to say three Masses on Christmas as the Dominicans do, simply because the Dominican missal was translated into the Armenian language.

31 J. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio, XXXV (ed. J. Mansi, J. Martin-L. Petit, Paris-Leipzig, 1902), 1051, 14.

32 Acta SC de Prop. Fide (1622-1625), III, 99; Coll. Lacensis II, 501-502.

33 Acta SC de Prop. Fide (1630-1631), VII, 54-55; Coll. Lacensis II, 502.

34 Acta SC de Prop. Fide (1824), CLXXXVII, 145.

35 S. Congreg. Prop. de Fide (Prot. n. 4795 / 57), Periodica XLVIII, 1 (Rome, 1959), 102-103.

36 NCWC News Service Foreign, Washington, D.C., Nov. 17, 1958.

37 SC Sancti Officii, (Feb. 11, 1959), Prot. n. 592 / 58, Periodica, XLVIII, 2 (Rome, 1959), 195-196; cf. also 199-200.

[Claud]

Apologies, I just realized that you were asking for the documentation on indults of vernacular hymnody rather than just plain vernacular....that I’m not sure about. Back to the research desk we go! :)

[maryz]

When conditions return to normal in China . . .

Yes, well . . . :(

[ninenot]

Propagation of the Faith...

Umnnnh...that should be a hint that these are for “mission lands,” not for ‘established’ lands.

(Let’s not go to ‘whether the US is a mission land?’...although it IS tempting.)

And the German permission still requires the Latin reading. Not all that different from the ordinary method of reading the Ep/Gos in English before launching into the Sermon, eh?

The point I’m making should be evident, but your knowledge in this area is good. I’ll read the rest of the link to find out what’s up.

[ninenot]

This letter was written before the “Dialog Mass” permission was granted (I think that was 1958.)

So while Pius approved such hymnody (and we note his careful circumscription about ‘careful adaptation,’) I suspect that the “dumb spectator” would not exist were the Dialog Mass to be used.

Yes, we Krauts can be quite obstinate; obviously, we taught the Liturgeists well vis-a-vis altar girlies and communion in the hand...

[jrny]

I’m going to try to tie in what everyone is talking about here...:)

1. The High Mass is the norm. True. More accurately, the Solemn High Mass is the normative form of the Extraordinary form of the Roman Rite. Catch is, norm or normative does not (unfortunately) mean the usual or common, but more along the lines of what is the ideal or what should be common or usual.

2. Should we get rid of Low Mass? Personally...an emphatic yes! Practically, not a chance. The Low Mass was as some have mentioned a development due to time constraints, many priests, and times of persecution (esp. in Ireland). Thankfully, we do have the Dialogue Mass at Mater Ecclesiae, but that is not very common at large throughout the English speaking world. The Dialogue Mass is a huge step toward making the Low Mass more akin to the High Mass. In fact, I remember an SSPX priest once told me that in all liturgies, the focus should be to “raise” the liturgy higher - i.e. make a Low Mass as much like a High Mass, make a High Mass as much like a Solemn High Mass, etc. within the proper rubrical guidelines of course. So, I guess inserting hymns into a Low Mass does do that, but that shouldn’t be the only way or final product of making the Low Mass into a proper vehicle of actual participation.

3. That brings us back to the original article. By and large, the silent Low Mass with 4 hymns was the common way the vast majorities of Catholics worshipped 50 years ago, and unfortunately, the same format plays out in the Novus Ordo today with the exception of the people responding throughout and the hymns from hell. But we’re not talking about the quality of the hymns here, we’re talking about the common perception of what is the ideal liturgical format for Mass, and what mistakes were made and lessons we can learn to not repeat. The Liturgical Movement (hijacked after V2) of Dom Gueranger is the “program for success” - get the congregation singing chant (St. Pius X, Pius XII) in Latin and actively praying (not praying at) the Mass, and then and only then start thinking about adding some enrichments such as all those classical hymns.

[Claud]

(Let’s not go to ‘whether the US is a mission land?’...although it IS tempting.)

LOL...Even Europe is nowadays.

I see what you're saying. I don't want to press the point too much, but I think that the extent to which hymns have been imported into the liturgy and their--well, their dogged persistence over the last 400 years in very different places--may be an indication that this is more than merely a corruption of the liturgy. Maybe at the root of this is some budding liturgical development. *shrug* I'm willing to take a wait and see attitude.

In support of your point though, when you look at the way hymns were used in the Canadian missions, they generally started out in the very beginning as simple hymns based on the Our Father, Hail Mary, and other common prayers that the Indians first learned...but as time went on, their repertoire expanded dramatically to hymns from the Breviary and even to plainchant propers in the true sense.

So even in the missions, there was an increasing tendency to tie the hymnody ever more closely to the liturgical text.

[Claud]

The Liturgical Movement (hijacked after V2) of Dom Gueranger is the “program for success” - get the congregation singing chant (St. Pius X, Pius XII) in Latin and actively praying (not praying at) the Mass, and then and only then start thinking about adding some enrichments such as all those classical hymns.

Good summary on all counts, jrny. And I'd definitely agree with the above--I think it is pretty well consonant with what Pius XII laid out.

I guess we'll have to see how things shake out...maybe Low Mass is doomed for extinction. Maybe it will morph into something else.

One question though...I thought we didn't exactly do the dialogue Mass at ME...wouldn't that involve us saying the servers' parts of the prayers at the foot of the altar and the Confiteor, for instance? Maybe I'm just confused on that score.

[Pyro7480]

I guess we'll have to see how things shake out...maybe Low Mass is doomed for extinction.

I would put the qualifier "public" before "Low Masses." I would say that priest-monks would stay say their private Low Masses.

[jrny]

At ME, we do what can be classified as a Level 1 Dialogue Mass. In the 1958 Musica Sacra norms for the Dialogue Mass, 4 levels are given, each one involving greater vocal participation. Levels 1 & 2 involve varying amounts of the server’s responses.

Most Dialogue Masses in actual use are usually a Level 3 (i.e. All the Server’s parts plus the Ordinary (Kyrie, Gloria, etc.)). A Level 4, which I have never personally witnessed, would involve the people saying the Propers (Introit, etc.)together w/ the priest .

[Claud]

Huh! I had no idea about the levels. Thanks for the info. Who decides on which level, the local bishop or the parish priest?

Or is it just whatever custom was already in place...as I’m sure it is at M.E.

[ninenot]

The parish priest. Bishops don’t really have much of a say in Liturgy (see Canon 2) although they can influence what happens (see the USA, ~1965-present)