In quires and places....

[Merseysider]

for those of us planning music month by month, the principles become so far open to interpretation as to become meaningless.

And my assembly need not have learned four new Holys in the last year. And they sing 'em pretty well, too.

[Gwyn]

The reality for me is that when the celebrant sings. "May our voices be one with them, as we join in that everlasting hymn of praise;" what follows isn't usually up to the job. There are only a few settings of the Sanctus that are truly worthy.

Does it really, REALLY matter so much if occasionally a good standard parish or cathedral choir sing something worthy of the angelic chorus while the rest of the assembly absorb the beauty of its celestial inspiration? After all, isn't this what happens at the Liturgy of the Word? We sit, listen and absorb, I've never felt excluded because I too can't read aloud, I can silently read along if I so desire.

Maybe I'm missing the point though, it wouldn't be unusual.

I appreciate that the acclamations are the liturgical equivalents of "For he's a Jolly Good Fellow!" or "Happy Birthday to You", but a nice bit o' quality choral singing occasionally won't suddenly send the rest of the assembly rusing indignantly toward the door nor will it (further) increase the graph trend of UK conversions to Islam.

Good thread.

[contrabordun]

Does it really, REALLY matter so much if occasionally a good standard parish or cathedral choir sing something worthy of the angelic chorus while the rest of the assembly absorb the beauty of its celestial inspiration?

Well I for one don't think so, but others clearly do. As per my previous post, these views are not compatible - there's no point trying to pretend otherwise. I'm also quite prepared to be persuaded that I'm wrong - willing to change my mind if convinced. Wouldn't be happy about it - but that's not really relevant.

[Benevenio]

something worthy of the angelic chorus...

But we cannot know what is worthy and what isn't. We all know that beauty is in the eye (or, in this case, the ear) of the beholder. Angels might sing "Holy, holy, holy Lord" in the style of Bach; they might sing it in the style of Schoenburg; they might just be singing in the style of the Carpenters (which could easily have an appeal to at least one member of the Holy Family...) but we plainly do not know.

To use an aesthetic as a judgement call as to what we might sing or might not, is suely not a good criterion. We should not be using the Liturgy as a vehicle for manipulating the emotions, which going for our perception of beauty is verging on: where the music becomes more important than the text. So what is a good criterion?

There is much talk here about "active participation", and there are those who would define this as "doing". But it isn't: think about what Presbyter said: sacred music is that which is integral to and servant of the rite. During the Liturgy of the Word, we are not called to sing the readings week by week; we are asked to listen to the proclamation (not read it for ourselves in the book, not to proclaim it for ourselves, but to listen). It differs at the Holy, holy. The acclamation is "hosanna". This is not merely saying "Hurrah!"; St Jerome argues that it means "save us" or "be our salvation", and that the additional in excelsis is from its usage in the Temple at the end of the Feast of Tabernacles, the Great Hosanna.

And sure, I can say, privately, save me but our 'modern' RC liturgy is a corporate act: save us, and I want the whole assembly to be able to say/sing/shout that together. For Liturgical musicians deliberately to plan to exclude, on the basis that they want to sing something "beautiful" this week, is really not an option; what we are asked to do is to facilitate the people in joining with the angels' song, whatever that might be. So, if you decide to sing Bach, then you need to teach the assembly how to do so...

[presbyter]

something worthy of the angelic chorus...

So what is a good criterion?

........ what we are asked to do is to facilitate the people in joining with the angels' song

....... and - as I hope we have managed to do recently - join in with the Palm Sunday crowd. As Benevenio rightly points out, Hosanna is an acclamation that rejoices in the presence of salvation in person. How on earth can the assembly remain passive listeners at this point in the Mass? We are not bystanders watching and listening to the crowd who shout and wave their branches, we are surely part of the crowd. For heaven's sake, let's put the Spirit of the liturgy into the liturgy.

[presbyter]

What I really think we should be addressing here is not so much who should sing the Sanctus (a secondary consideration) but how might we enable the assembly's participation in the whole Eucharistic Prayer.
"WE" offer you ...." To echo Gelineau writing some years past now, doesn't the renewal of the liturgy demand we look at the whole EP as a musical unit? And what about the addition of extra acclamations for the people? They are provided for in GIRM.

Oh I do wish musicians would stop thinking about (even worshipping) music before any other consideration - think about what God is trying to do for us in the liturgy and how music might enable that. That's the way to discover what truly sacred music is.

[contrabordun]

How on earth can the assembly remain passive listeners at this point in the Mass?

Most of them seem to find it quite easy. The rest just practise until they get the hang of it, sometimes for many years...

[presbyter]

With a sigh that comes from the heart........

I have just concelebrated at a Chrism Mass where some 260 priests and thirty-odd deacons and two Bishops were denied any part in singing the Sanctus.

For heaven's sake - even in 1967 (Musicam Sacram) it is a mandatory requirement that this is a song of the people (and for sound theological and pastoral reasons too)

" Thus in all cases the faithful are to be brought to take part fully in the singing.

29. To the first degree belong:


a. in the entrance rites

-the priest's greeting and the congregation's response;
-the opening prayer.



b. in the liturgy of the word

-the gospel acclamations.

c. in the liturgy of the eucharist

-the prayer over the gifts;
-the preface, with the opening dialogue and the Sanctus;
-the Lord's Prayer, with the invitation and embolism;
-the greeting May the peace of the Lord;
-the prayer after communion;
-the final dismissal. "


[/u]

[presbyter]

AND - for a more recent document (on abuses in the Liturgy) Redemptionis Sacramentum - there is a clear indication that the Sanctus, Memorial Acclamation and Great Amen are prayers in which the whole assembly takes part.

Regarding the Eucharistic Prayer:

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.[133]

Whether it be a Cathedral or Parish church, settings of these acclamations which do not involve the assembly in song are proscribed.

Which is not the case with the Agnus Dei for example. So if you want to sing Palestrina or Grayston Ives - sing that!

Can we all PLEASE read what the function of a liturgical choir/schola is in the documents.

[presbyter]

"b) Acclamation: joining with the heavenly powers the whole congregation sings the Sanctus. "


The revised GIRM now in force - paragraph 79b - to be published on 14th April by the CTS - there is just no argument about who should sing the Sanctus - it is EVERYBODY!

Now please stop arguing about the beauty of choral settings - and the preservation of the treasury of sacred music (whatever that treasury may be - and also remember the conciliar definition of what sacred music is) - as regards the Acclamations in the Eucharistic Prayer, they are to be the song of the Assembly - no you can't sing a Palestrina or a Langlais Sanctus anymore in the celebration of the liturgy - so don't! Instead, let's have some beautiful settings composed that have choral embellishments for cathedral choirs and a jolly good tune for the people.

[presbyter]

And as regards the choir - the new revised General Instruction (but lifted almost word for word from 1975)

103. The schola cantorum or choir exercises its own liturgical role among the faithful. It is for the choir to ensure that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different types of chants, are properly carried out and to encourage the active participation of the faithful in the singing. What is said about the choir also applies in a similar way to other musicians, especially the organist.

104. It is fitting that there be a cantor or a choir director to lead and sustain the people in the singing. When in fact there is no choir, it is up to the cantor to lead the different chants, and the people take part in the way proper to them.88 ensure that the parts proper to it, in keeping with the different types of chants, are carried out becomingly and to encourage active participation of the people in the singing. [51] What is said about the choir applies in a similar way to other musicians, especially the organist. 64. There should be a cantor or a choir director to lead and sustain the people in singing. When in fact there is no choir, it is up to the cantor to lead the various songs, and the people take part in the way proper to them. [52]


And as regards Music in general

The Importance of Singing

39. The Christian faithful who gather together as one to await the Lord’s coming are instructed by the Apostle Paul to sing together psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs (cf. Colossians 3:16). Singing is the sign of the heart’s joy (cf. Acts 2:46). Thus St. Augustine says rightly: “Singing is for lovers.’There is also the ancient proverb: “One who sings well prays twice.”

In choosing the parts actually to be sung, however, preference must be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the reader, with the people responding, or by the priest and people together.

40. For this reason and with due consideration for the culture of the people and abilities of each liturgical assembly, great importance should be attached to the use of singing in the celebration of the Mass. Although it is not always necessary to sing all the texts that are of themselves meant to be sung (e.g., in weekday Masses), every care must be taken that singing by the ministers and the people is not absent in celebrations that occur on Sundays and holy days of obligation.
In choosing the parts actually to be sung, however, preference must be given to those that are of greater importance and especially to those to be sung by the priest or the deacon or the reader, with the people responding, or by the priest and people together.

All other things being equal, Gregorian chant, as being proper to the Roman liturgy, has pride of place. Other types of sacred music, polyphony in particular, are in no way excluded, provided they correspond to the spirit of the liturgical action and that they encourage participation by all the faithful.

Since in these times the faithful from different countries come together more frequently, it is desirable that these faithful know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin especially the profession of faith and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies.

[Merseysider]

As a parish musician, I feel bound, not only by the princples described by Presbyter, but also by a feeling for, and knowledge of, what's going on.

So where do I look for inspiration – well, in theory to my mother church, the cathedral.

So – all debates about the worthiness of different styles aside – may I now return to my original question: how do many of our cathedrals get away with ignoring rules/practice?

There's been some pretty lively debate here – but, apart from mcb, noone has managed to answer the question.

[presbyter]

how do many of our cathedrals get away with ignoring rules/practice?

The Liturgist in your Diocese is the Bishop - why not write a very gentle letter expressing your concerns but don't make it a complaint - Bishops have enough of those landing on their desks each day.

[mcb]

Whether it be a Cathedral or Parish church, settings of these acclamations which do not involve the assembly in song are proscribed.

Where does it say that then? Presbyter, you're getting carried away. Surely you mean that's your (rather hard-line) interpretation of the documents? There's a difference, I submit.

Since in these times the faithful from different countries come together more frequently, it is desirable that these faithful know how to sing together at least some parts of the Ordinary of the Mass in Latin especially the profession of faith and the Lord’s Prayer, set to the simpler melodies.

This kind of puts it all into perspective, perhaps? It strikes me as a good illustration of how the rules taken literally as prescriptions/proscriptions can be fairly useless. The Creed and the Lord's Prayer come at the very bottom of the list of musical priorities in any Mass, at least according to the rules laid down by the Bishops of England and Wales. How can we expect the people to know the Lord's Prayer in Latin if singing the Lord's Prayer at all is "for the angels"? Presbyter, which of these rules are we allowed to ignore?

Now please stop arguing about the beauty of choral settings - and the preservation of the treasury of sacred music

There are three judgements here, according to the US bishops: liturgical, pastoral and musical. It's easy to be a fundamentalist when it comes to the liturgical judgement, because the principles can be interpreted as prescriptions for those with a mind to. The musical judgement is more complex. But I don't know that it's worth nothing beside the other two.

you can't sing a Palestrina or a Langlais Sanctus anymore in the celebration of the liturgy - so don't!

When I read this I feel uneasy - like I do when I read hardline assertions that Humanae Vitae, as part of the Church's ordinary magisterium, should be held to be taught infallibly. Very nice for you if you agree with it, but I'd like to see it in black and white from somebody in charge, rather than a zealous commentator, before I'm persuaded.

Instead, let's have some beautiful settings composed that have choral embellishments for cathedral choirs and a jolly good tune for the people.

Here's the rub. Where are these musical settings? I for one would love to know of them if they're out there; I certainly wish there were more. But Rome wasn't built in a day, and the last forty years simply hasn't thrown up an instant alternative repertoire of liturgically sound classics. How could we expect that to have happened? In the mean time do we really have to agree that the Israeli Mass is better than the Pope Marcellus Mass? Or is there perhaps room for the odd dissenter who thinks that Palestrina is conducive to worthy celebration of the Eucharist.

Don't get me wrong - I haven't changed where I stand. Yesterday at our Mass of Chrism we had Paul Inwood's Gathering Mass, and very fitting it was, brass fanfares and choral descants and all. You wouldn't catch me silencing the assembly to stun them with a choral Sanctus. (We did that with Lotti's Crucifixus, Byrd's O Quam Suavis, and Stainer's God So Loved The World. Not a dry eye in the house. ) But I can understand people who see it differently, as musical ministers giving of their best and as ministers and members of the assembly happy to be (non-normatively passive ) participants in something sublime.

Martin.

[Hare]

The Gathering Mass was banned by my previous PP, because he kept getting confused! (Yes-really!!) On several occasions, hearing the "Hosannah's" reprised after the Memorial Acclamation, he thought it was the Sanctus (having forgotten we'd already sung that!) amd start the EP again. It was, of course my fault, or Paul Inwood's! He also came up with some daft story (actually not so daft in my Parish) that "because the hymnbook has the music in, the congregation are saying it's just for the choir not the congregation and therefore exclusive"....