Dramatic Changes in Music Rubrics for New Missal

Chant Cafe ^ | 7/8/11 | Jeffrey A Tucker

[markomalley]

Some of the most advanced thinkers in the world of music and liturgy have long identified the critical problem in Catholic music today. They have pointed out that the Mass itself provides for the texts and the music for the Mass, but in the General Instruction on on the Roman Missal, there appears a loophole. Musicians can sing what is appointed, or (“option 4”) they can sing something else, and that something else is limited only by what the musicians themselves deem as “appropriate.” What this has meant, in effect, is: anything goes. This is why it often seems that when it comes to music at Mass that, well, anything goes.

I’m happy to report that the legislative ground has just shifted, and dramatically so. The new translation of the General Instruction removes the discretion from the music team to sing pretty much whatever it wants. The new text, which pertains to the new translation of the Missal that comes into effect on Advent this year, makes it clear beyond any doubt: the music of the Mass is the chanted propers of the Mass. There are options but these options all exist within the universe of the primary normative chant. There can be no more making up some random text, setting it to music, and singing it as the entrance, offertory, or communion.

I have no doubt that the practice of singing non-liturgical texts will continue but it will now continue only under a cloud. If I’m reading this correctly, any text other than an appointed text for the Mass will now fall outside the boundaries provided for by the authoritative document that regulates the manner in which Mass is to proceed.

We can be sure that gigabytes of digits will be produced with the intention of explaining to me and everyone why what we can clearly read below does not really mean what it seems to be saying, that there has been some mistake in phrasing, that taking this literally is only the penchant of “traditionalists,” and that the prevailing practice surely has equal normative status. Nonetheless, the text is there, clear as a bell, and will be printed in all editions of the Missal that is now in preparation.

Catholic musicians of the world, the GIRM would like you to meet a new friend: the propers of the Mass.

Let us compare old and new:

The Entrance

2003 GIRM:

47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.

48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the 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 Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song 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) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

2011 GIRM

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 Gradual Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduate 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.

Comment: There are several crucial differences. The new version clearly elevates the antiphons from the Roman Gradual or the Roman Missal as the core text. The old version had a mistake that had been confusing for years: it referred only to the Psalm from the Gradual. The new version clearly states that it is the antiphon and Psalm that are applicable from both books. Option three makes it clear that we are not talking about any song; we are talking about the liturgical chant, and there is a huge difference. Finally, option four blasts away the vague word “song” and again emphasizes chant, and with this important proviso: “suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year.” One would have to be deliberately obtuse not to see that this refers to the proper text of the day in question.

The Psalm

2003 GIRM:

61(d). [T]he following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.

2011 GIRM:

61(d). …[I]nstead of the Psalm assigned in the lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books, or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical fonn, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.

The textual differences are subtle but with huge implications. The 2003 GIRM subtly and confusingly implied that you can only use the Gradual if the texts of the Psalm with the same as the Lectionary. I’m not sure how often that occurs, but this sort of phrasing clearly gives primacy to the Lectionary over the Psalter dating back to the earliest centuries. That phrasing is now gone. It is now fantastically clear that one can use the Gradual as a primary source. It is clearly not depreciated any longer. And this is important: the Graduals are the oldest known body of Christian music. They should be permitted and not depreciated in the Roman Rite.

The Offertory

2003 and 2001 GIRM texts are identical:

74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory chant (cf. above, no. 37b), which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance chant (cf. above, no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.

Comment: the meaning of the paragraph is wholly dependent on getting the rubrics on the Entrance chant correct. Because the new GIRM corrects the rubrics on the entrance chant, this one stands corrected too. But there is a wrinkle here that will cause some scrambling to occur come November. There is no offertory chant in the Missal. The only place to find this is in the official ritual book the Graduale Romanum. It can also be found in unofficial books like the Simple English Propers and the Simple Choral Gradual. Most Catholic singers will be stunned to learn that there is an appointed text here.

Communion

2003 GIRM

87. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86 above. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.

2011 GIRM

87. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex of 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) some other suitable liturgical chant (cf. no. 86) approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.

Comment: once again, songs are out; chants are in. The word tangle in the first option that appeared in 2003 is now entirely gone. We aren’t talking about just the Psalm from the Roman Gradual. We are talking about the antiphons and Psalms from either the Missal or the Gradual. Thank you for that clarity; it makes a huge difference. Option three is also clear: not just any song but a chant like the first and section choice from another collection. Finally, a “suitable liturgical chant” in number four, folllowing the prior uses of the word chant, makes it very clear that the discretion here is gone. The texts must be from the liturgical books, as is implied with the mandate that it be approved by the USCCB or the Diocesan Bishop that regulates ritual texts for singing.

Only after the communion proper has been sung may a hymn be sung. The difference in word choice here is unambiguous: a chant is part of the liturgical structure. A hymn is something else. This usage is 100% consistent from the beginning of the GIRM 2011 to its end. And this clarity about usage finally removes all doubt about what must be sung at Mass: the Mass must be sung at Mass.

Now, I know what you are already thinking. You see a way around all this. Any pastor or musician can just decide to call the groovy tune that is chosen a “chant.” Here’s my chant, says Lady Gaga. It’s true that you could ignore the whole of English usage and call anything a chant, and I can also call my hat a banana and no one can stop me.

In like manner, you can ignore all the clear import of the mandates here pounce on the slight bit of liberality and say, hey, who’s gonna stop this? All of that is true. And so it is when dealing with children when you step out of the house for a bit: you can give the clearest instructions possible, a comprehensive list of dos and do nots, and yet somehow they will find a way to get around the rules. All of this is true.

In other words, it will still not be possible to bring an end to the pop music with random texts at Mass by waving this at your pastor’s face. It seems to me very clear that vast swaths of existing music used in the English speaking world are soon to be regarded as illicit. I don’t think there is any other honest way to read the new GIRM. There is very little if any room for anything now but the propers of the Mass.

I’m not naive and neither are you: the other songs will continue. Even so, they are not long for this world. The Church now speaks and sings with a clear voice; we can choose to sing along or sing some other song of our choosing.

____

Here is a fair-use excerpt scan sent my way. 

[Melian]

” ... the wor - or- orld ... “

Now, that’s funny! My dear eldest daughter cannot abide the modern music in Mass. Wherever she goes, I hear her ratings of the Masses she has attended and the music in Mass has a deep influence on her. She selects her parish based on the experience in the confessional and the music.

[Melian]

“I’m just praying for a local Anglican parish with a dignified reverent liturgy to cross the Tiber. “

I’ve been searching and waiting for the same thing. I recently visited Holy Name Cathedral in Chicago. Now that’s a church! It is gloriously artistic and showcases man’s ability to praise God through architecture. The music was beautiful and they still kneel. I felt wonderful there. One Mass there fed my soul for a month.

Now if only I could find that in my hometown. Our bishop, meanwhile, is talking about buying the Crystal Cathedral!

[Campion]

Why on Earth do our bishops tinker with custom like this? We should all be using our bodies in the same way at every Mass in the country. Isn’t it incorrect to hold hands during the Our Father?

Holding hands during the Pater is some sort of Protestant custom imported by Charismatics. I don't think you can really blame the bishops for it, except to the extent that they've tolerated it or given a bad example by doing it themselves.

And no, it's not required, and it's wrong to try to impose it on people -- even if it's lay people imposing it on other lay people.

[Tax-chick]

We never held hands when I was Protestant, but then, it was Presbyterian, and rather stiff. However, I’ve never been in a Catholic parish that did not, although I’ve probably visited some. Doesn’t bother me either way. I’m nearly always holding onto my kids, anyway.

[Desdemona]

Every Catholic should know the Gloria by heart and say or sing it joyfully. The entire thing!

Be ready for the text change the first week of Advent. It's creeping up on us.

I have begun resisting pressure by not holding hands during the Our Father. I just hold my hands up in front of me, put my head down, close my eyes, and pray it. Last week, while in this posture of prayer, I had a fellow parishioner come across the aisle and tap me on the arm and make me hold his hand!

When the choir is off, I do what the sisters do - lace my fingers at my waist and bow my head. I assume they're correct. Not that we hold hands at my parish.

Why on Earth do our bishops tinker with custom like this? We should all be using our bodies in the same way at every Mass in the country. Isn’t it incorrect to hold hands during the Our Father?

I don't know that it originated with the bishops. They just haven't corrected it.

[Desdemona]

The music was beautiful and they still kneel.

That's Cardinal George's influence. Before he went there, word is kneeling was not done. I would imagine the music, too. Bernardin was into the banal stuff.

[Biggirl]

It was the non-Catholic Taize chanting source which HELPED me both discover and appriciate the older Catholic sources of liturgy music. This is very important because I grew up, as a child of the VC II NOT knowing ANY of the older Catholic sources in regards to music. I have on my iTunes music roster chants from the Spanish Benedictine Monks of Santo Domingo de Silos.

That is why, I say that Taize should be given CREDIT where CREDIT is DUE, for honoring this RICH music heritage. For this is why I say it is a begining level to chant.

[Biggirl]

Plus there are people like myself, who grew up under the shadow of VC2, and even in the music ministry that I am in, the minister that has just retired and the one coming in, did very mininmal Latin-related chants at best.

[Campion]

The modern archetype of this is the unfortunately ubiquitous Mass of Creation

Unaffectionately known as the "Massive Cremation".

-- written by Marty Haugen....a Lutheran.

Hah! We wish Marty Haugen were a Lutheran. He's an ex-Lutheran; a member of the United Church of Christ.

[markomalley]

Hah! We wish Marty Haugen were a Lutheran. He's an ex-Lutheran; a member of the United Church of Christ.

Thanks. That makes more sense than I can possibly explain on a caucus thread.

[markomalley]

It was the non-Catholic Taize chanting source which HELPED me both discover and appriciate the older Catholic sources of liturgy music.

Great!

I don't see that as the typical reaction...but if, in your case, it worked, fantastic.

You do realize that, other than the articles I post and any Magesterial source I cite, all posts are IMHO and most definitely FWIW. Therefore, it should go without saying, YMMV!!!!!

;-)

[SuziQ]

The choir at our Parish sings the Gloria verses, in four part harmony, but if folks want to sing along with the melody, we’re happy to have them do it. We sing the same one, during the whole liturgical season, so they are certainly familiar with it, as they are will all the other parts of the Mass.

[Salvation]

Ialways thought Gounod was the Catholic Ave Maria and that Schubert was the one to be avoided.

[Biggirl]

WELCOME BACK Salvation!

[netmilsmom]

>>I have begun resisting pressure by not holding hands during the Our Father. I just hold my hands up in front of me, put my head down, close my eyes, and pray it.<<

Stop that orans position. In the GIRM it is reserved for the priest and deacon only. It is never allowed for the laity and part of your problem. I left “Lib city” church and know just what you’re going through.

Fold your hands and close your eyes. If someone taps you, ignore it. If it happens again, ignore it again. If they call your name, ignore it. With your hands folded, no one can grab your hand. If they come up to your and ask about it after, Open your eyes wide and exclaim, “I was PRAYING!” That solved my problem. Eventually, a whole group of us (starting with the men who hate the hand holding anyway) folded our hands for the Our Father. I think that if I had stayed, many more would have.

Here is an excellent statement from Karl Keating, of Catholic Answers.com. I wish that we could get this out to all Catholics to make them understand. It DOES take away the meaning in other parts of the mass. You would be amazed at how many people will drop their hands when a few in the pew do.

May 23, 2004, 04:50 PM
Karl Keating Karl Keating is offline
President, Catholic Answers

Join Date: April 1, 2004
Location: San Diego
Posts: 636
Default Re: Holding hands at the Lord’s Prayer
In America, we shake hands with one another at the sign of peace. In Japan parishioners bow to one another. In other countries there may be other conventions.

At the sign of peace we’re saying “I’m at peace with you” or “I feel reconciled to you.” We convey that through words (”The peace of Christ be with you”) and through an action that is friendly but not intimate or intrusive (since most of those around us likely will be strangers).

This act of demonstrating reconciliation is undermined by holding hands at the Our Father. That prayer comes immediately before the sign of peace. In those parishes where people hold hands during that prayer, they are engaging in an action that is much more intimate than a handshake.

If we hold hands during the Our Father, it undercuts the significance of the following act, since holding hands trumps shaking hands. The sign of peace withers. A prescribed part of the liturgy (the sign of peace) loses much of its significance (much of its “sign value”) when parishioners hold hands at the Our Father.

(It’s good to say “I love you” to your spouse, but if you say that to everyone you meet on the street, your spouse will feel your words have been devalued.)

Another point: In our culture, hand-holding is approved of when adults hold the hands of young children, when boyfriend and girlfriend hold hands, and when married couples hold hands (though this commonly stops a few weeks after the honeymoon ).

We do not hold hands with strangers to whom we are introduced. We shake hands instead. Holding hands in such a situation would be perceived as too intimate. And in some cases, holding hands even suggests something unsavory, as when we see two men holding hands as they walk down the sidewalk.

Can anyone think of any situation, other than at the Our Father during Mass, in which people commonly hold hands with strangers? I can’t, and I think there is a reason: Hand holding is a sign of a certain intimacy. It’s not something we take lightly.

To hold hands with strangers at Mass strikes me as artificial, and it has become a detriment to a proper appreciation of the liturgy. Yes, it is easy enough to avoid, but I think it remains a problem. It is one kind of problem for those who don’t wish to hold hands, and it is another kind of problem (the problem of not understanding the role of signs in the Mass) for those who like the practice.

[BelegStrongbow]

Gounod was Roman, so far as I know. And I see no problem with the Schubert, which is just about the modern classical standard setting. Unless it is utter bigotry for anything not written by a professing Roman Catholic, I’m really failing to see the point of excluding great works for liturgical use written by Anglicans or Protestants (not at all the same thing).

[Melian]

Thank you so much for that great response. I’ll try it.

When you say you fold your hands in front of you, are you lacing your fingers together and folding them tightly or are you placing your palms together with the fingers straight up?

What are you doing when we say, “For the kingdom, power, and glory are yours...”? Are you lifting your hands up toward heaven?

[Desdemona]

And I see no problem with the Schubert, which is just about the modern classical standard setting.

It's lieder, an art song, not sacred, so technically it's not supposed to be used. I wish people would consider the Faure. Much more beautiful setting.

[ArrogantBustard]

Because pretty much EVERY Roman Catholic parish insists on offering only short bus liturgies. They show no respect for the intelligence of the parishioners. They are like Cain offering up the crap.

Brilliant simile. THANK you.

[ArrogantBustard]

include that insipid hymn that re-uses the theme from the 4th Movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony

Joyful, joyful makes me vomit. I have learned to hate this tune ...

(Yes, it matches the meter.)