Status of Hymns at Mass

[mcb]

Given that choir-only pieces during Communion ought to be discarded in favour of Communion psalms and songs with refrains for the assembly,

Blimey, where does it say that then? There's a danger of being a bit too dogmatic on these things, isn't there? In any event the US bishops don't share your hard line:

Appropriate times where the choir might commonly sing alone include ... during the Communion procession (Sing to the Lord, 30)

the best place for using all the settings of Ave verum, etc, that choirs like to do is during the presentation of the gifts.

Ave verum at the preparation of the gifts, huh? You're being mischievous, Mr Comfort. Or would you have us believe you don't know what the Latin words mean?

The serious point here, of course, is that no place in the liturgy is the right one for pieces of music whose sole justification is that choirs like to do them. But it would be verging on the puritanical, or the iconoclastic, to think that if a piece of music is (a) beautiful and (b) sung by the choir then it's out of line with the true place and purpose of liturgical music.

Sometimes I think you're just trying to stir things up.

M.

[nazard]

Should the hymn just accompany the procession and the berakoth prayers be audible?

The whole point of the offertory, hymn antiphon or just plain noise is to muffle that dreadful bera thingie. What was wrong with "Suscipe sancte Pater"?

[presbyter]

What was wrong with "Suscipe sancte Pater"?

In brief - and off topic but you could start another thread -

Súscipe, sancte Pater, omnípotens ætérne Deus, hanc immaculátam hóstiam, quam ego indígnus fámulus tuus óffero tibi Deo meo vivo et vero, pro innumerabílibus peccátis, et offensiónibus, et negligéntiis meis, et pro ómnibus circumstántibus, sed et pro ómnibus fidélibus christiánis vivis atque defúunctis: ut mihi et illis profíciat ad salútem in vitam ætérnam. Amen.


Accept, O Holy father, Almighty and Eternal God, this spotless host, which I, Your unworthy servant, offer to You, my living and true God, to atone for my numberless sins, offences, and negligences; on behalf of all here present and likewise for all faithful Christians living and dead, that it may profit me and them as a means of salvation to life everlasting. Amen.

- it's an unnecessary and (imho) confusing anticipation of what is the offering in the Eucharistic Prayer (note the anticipatory sacrificial language - Host, not bread). Furthermore, it lacks any sense of Eucharist - "blessing" - giving thanks and praise. Crichton is good on this somewhere - but I'm nowhere near my books to give you a reference. If John A has his Bugnini to hand...... (again, mine's several rooms away and it's too late to go searching).

Don't forget that early rites do not have any prayers at this moment - which was, I understand, what was initially mooted at the time of the genesis of the Paul VI Missal.

Does anyone have an updated Dix with the commentary on his Offertory research? (Makes note to self - buy)


-

[presbyter]

Given that choir-only pieces during Communion ought to be discarded

Oh I don't think the documents were quite so draconian - but I know what you mean!

GIRM

87. In the dioceses of the England and Wales the options for the Communion
chant are as follows: (1) the antiphon from the Graduale Romanum either with
or without the psalm; (2) the antiphon with the psalm from the Graduale
Simplex; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved
by the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales. It is sung either by the choir
alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.
If there is no singing, however, the Communion antiphon found in the Missal
may be recited either by the faithful, or by some of them, or by a lector.
Otherwise the priest himself says it after he has received Communion and before
he distributes Communion to the faithful.

Communion Song - CTM
213 The Communion of priest and people is helpfully
accompanied by prayerful congregational song. This singing is
meant to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of
the unity of their voices, to give evidence of joy of heart, and
to highlight more the “communitarian” nature of the
Communion procession The Roman Rite provides an antiphon
to be sung at this point. The antiphon may be replaced by a
psalm or suitable liturgical song. The text and the music should
be suited to the mystery being celebrated, the part of the Mass,
the liturgical season or the day.312 The singing continues for as
long as the faithful are receiving the Sacrament. If, however,
there is to be a hymn after Communion, the Communion chant
should be ended at the right time.313
• The communion song begins immediately after the common
recital of L o rd, I am not worthy and normally should
continue until all the assembly have received Communion.
• So as not to encumber the assembly with books or
scripts during the procession, the song may be led by
cantor or choir and include a repeated response or
refrain from the assembly.
• Care must be taken to ensure that cantors and musicians are
also able to receive Communion conveniently.314
• When it is clear that the communion procession is going
to take a long time, thought should be given to extending
the duration of the communion song by way of musical
improvisation, rather than adding additional songs or
allowing part of the communion procession to take
place in silence. However, when necessary a second
communion song or a motet may be sung or instrumental
music played.
• Many traditional Eucharistic hymns were composed for
Benediction of the Most Blessed Sacrament. They concentrate
on adoration rather than on the action of communion and
may not be appropriate as communion songs.
• When there is no music to accompany the procession the
antiphon might be recited by the priest. This should be
done after he has received Communion and before he
distributes Communion to the faithful.

[presbyter]

Who would have the sheer arrogance to compose a more liturgically correct version of the psalm that is Old 100th?
Alan

BUt what status would you give this little poetic offering?

1 I joyed when to the house of God,
Go up, they said to me.
2 Jerusalem, within thy gates
our feet shall standing be.

3 Jerus'lem, as a city, is
compactly built together:
4 Unto that place the tribes go up,
the tribes of God go thither:

To Isr'el's testimony, there
to God's name thanks to pay.
5 For thrones of judgment, ev'n the thrones
of David's house, there stay.

6 Pray that Jerusalem may have
peace and felicity:
Let them that love thee and thy peace
have still prosperity.

7 Therefore I wish that peace may still
within thy walls remain,
And ever may thy palaces
prosperity retain.

8 Now, for my friends' and brethren's sakes,
Peace be in thee, I'll say.
9 And for the house of God our Lord,
I'll seek thy good alway.

Scottish Psalter

I don't think the instruction that we should be more aware of the Psalter and use it at the Entrance and Communion slots means we should take on more metrical psalmody. I'd giggle if I had to sing the above.

[presbyter]

(Makes note to self - buy)

Has acted on note - it's £40 - oh well.

[alan29]

Who would have the sheer arrogance to compose a more liturgically correct version of the psalm that is Old 100th?
Alan

BUt what status would you give this little poetic offering?

1 I joyed when to the house of God,
Go up, they said to me.
2 Jerusalem, within thy gates
our feet shall standing be.

3 Jerus'lem, as a city, is
compactly built together:
4 Unto that place the tribes go up,
the tribes of God go thither:

To Isr'el's testimony, there
to God's name thanks to pay.
5 For thrones of judgment, ev'n the thrones
of David's house, there stay.

6 Pray that Jerusalem may have
peace and felicity:
Let them that love thee and thy peace
have still prosperity.

7 Therefore I wish that peace may still
within thy walls remain,
And ever may thy palaces
prosperity retain.

8 Now, for my friends' and brethren's sakes,
Peace be in thee, I'll say.
9 And for the house of God our Lord,
I'll seek thy good alway.

Scottish Psalter

I don't think the instruction that we should be more aware of the Psalter and use it at the Entrance and Communion slots means we should take on more metrical psalmody. I'd giggle if I had to sing the above.

Presumably translated by the same "linguists" who are currently doing the missal. No, it's too good.
Alan

[Southern Comfort]

Given that choir-only pieces during Communion ought to be discarded in favour of Communion psalms and songs with refrains for the assembly,

Blimey, where does it say that then? There's a danger of being a bit too dogmatic on these things, isn't there?

Well, presbyter has produced the documents. More on this below.

In any event the US bishops don't share your hard line:

Appropriate times where the choir might commonly sing alone include ... during the Communion procession (Sing to the Lord, 30)

Yes, and this is a good example of the a place which would have been very different had the 400 changes that the US bishops wanted incorporated in this document actually been included, instead of being shoved to one side by Mgr Jim Moroney as one of his last acts as secretary of the Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy (now called the Bishops' Committee on Divine Worship). Para 30 was one where discussion was simply pre-empted, despite it being one of the many paragraphs that were disagreed with by a significant number of the US bishops. I think it's amazing that this document has come out as well as it has. But it's not our document, it's theirs.

the best place for using all the settings of Ave verum, etc, that choirs like to do is during the presentation of the gifts.

Ave verum at the preparation of the gifts, huh? You're being mischievous, Mr Comfort. Or would you have us believe you don't know what the Latin words mean?

I most certainly do. Are you suggesting that the presence of the Body of Christ in the assembly, the word proclaimed and the person of the presider, to name but three, do not yet exist when the gifts are presented? Ave verum corpus refers to the Body of Christ in its mystical sense. The actual text talks about the perforated side of Christ from which flowed forth blood (no mention of water), so it certainly isn't just referring to the consecrated elements by any manner of means.

The serious point here, of course, is that no place in the liturgy is the right one for pieces of music whose sole justification is that choirs like to do them. But it would be verging on the puritanical, or the iconoclastic, to think that if a piece of music is (a) beautiful and (b) sung by the choir then it's out of line with the true place and purpose of liturgical music.

Sometimes I think you're just trying to stir things up.

M.

No, not stirring things up, just trying to get us to think about things a little more dispassionately.

Here is the US equivalent of the GIRM extracts that presbyter gave us:

86[formerly 56i]. While the priest is receiving the Sacrament, the Communion chant is begun. Its purpose is to express the communicants’ union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices, to show joy of heart, and to highlight more clearly the “communitarian” nature of the procession to receive Communion. ... [All as in the England and Wales 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.

It's important to remember that this is the text that was produced first, three years before ours was imposed on us. Notice the differences in para 87: the inclusion of responsorial and metrical forms in (3), and a completely new (4). Reading this, you can see that it is not clear whether the final sentence, about choir alone, or choir/cantor + people, refers to the Communion chant or just to (4). When producing our version, the Roman pundits simply ignored the England and Wales text, took the US version, and eliminated certain phrases without much thought....

But in any event, it is quite clear that in general the Roman Rite's first preference is for a communion psalm with an antiphon, which implies participation by the congregation. In my opinion, liturgical wallpaper sung by the choir at this point is providing music to be listened to, not music that "expresses the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices" (GIRM 86). For me, this last quote is the paramount one. When choirs sing solo pieces during Communion, they are, to put it bluntly, disenfranchising the assembly's song. They are undermining "Comm-union", our sense that we are doing something together here, not individually feeding ourselves but feeding the Body of Christ gathered together in this place. They need to stop doing that, and instead lead pieces that integrate the assembly into the union and unity that we are supposed to be symbolising in the deepest way at this point in the rite.

This is why I maintain that a better place for solo choral pieces is during the presentation of the gifts - i.e. still within the Liturgy of the Eucharist, and at a period which is a low point in the rite, a scene change and shift of focus from Word and Eucharist. If incensing takes place too, there is even more time for an expansive piece of beautiful music which prepares the people for what is to follow.

(As my own devils' advocate, I have to say that Gelineau would disagree with this, as a matter of fact. He would say that we should now be having a piece which (i) reflects back on the Liturgy of the Word and (ii) gives a burst of pure praise anticipating the thanksgiving in the Preface and first portion of the Eucharistic Prayer. However, he would also say that congregational antiphons, refrain, ostinati, etc, are what is needed during Communion, not choir pieces.)

[mcb]

where does it say that then?

Well, presbyter has produced the documents.

Hmm, one which says the Communion song is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people, and one which says a motet may be sung. (To quote slightly selectively. )

Are you suggesting that the presence of the Body of Christ in the assembly, the word proclaimed and the person of the presider, to name but three, do not yet exist when the gifts are presented? Ave verum corpus refers to the Body of Christ in its mystical sense.

Hmm... Sacrosanctum Concilium is wonderful for the way it enumerates the many ways in which Christ is present (in the sacrifice of the Mass, ... in the person of His minister ... especially under the Eucharistic species ... in the sacraments ... in His word ... He is present, lastly, when the Church prays and sings, for He promised: "Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them"), but Ave Verum Corpus is unequivocally concerned with his mystical presence under the Eucharistic species.

The actual text talks about the perforated side of Christ from which flowed forth blood (no mention of water), so it certainly isn't just referring to the consecrated elements by any manner of means.

Not so, I think. There are multiple variants of the text: unda fluxit sanguine, fluxit aqua et sanguine, unda fluxit et sanguine, vero fluxit sanguine. All but the last make explicit reference to water (unda can mean 'water' as well as 'wave', and that's what it means here), and in any case it looks as though those in the know argue for the more explicit fluxit aqua et sanguine as the authentic form of words. This is also the version in the 'official' Roman text, e.g. in the Liber Usualis.

But in any event, it is quite clear that in general the Roman Rite's first preference is for a communion psalm with an antiphon, which implies participation by the congregation.

Implies? I think it's hard to make that argument from first principles, so to speak, from the Rite - after all, the Communion antiphon, strictly speaking, is historically a chant item not for congregational singing at all. I've no problem with the idea that the Communion song can be sung by all, or even that it's better when it's sung by all. But it's an unsustainable leap from there to the idea that it can't be sung by a choir.

In my opinion, liturgical wallpaper sung by the choir at this point is providing music to be listened to, not music that "expresses the communicants' union in spirit by means of the unity of their voices" (GIRM 86).

The phrase liturgical wallpaper runs the risk of giving offence, I'd suggest. All these modes of singing are prayer in one form or another, and different communities have different needs and different means of expressing them. I'd no more call the output of a trained choir singing a polyphonic setting of the Communion antiphon wallpaper, than a primary school choir singing Bernadette Farrell's Bread of Life, or a music group singing the latest from Psallite to an assembly for whom the penny hasn't yet dropped that this is their musical moment rather than the music group's. All of these can be genuine moments of prayer, and can foster the sense of unity foreseen in GIRM by a means other than the normative unity of voices.

When choirs sing solo pieces during Communion, they are, to put it bluntly, disenfranchising the assembly's song. They are undermining "Comm-union", our sense that we are doing something together here, not individually feeding ourselves but feeding the Body of Christ gathered together in this place. They need to stop doing that, and instead lead pieces that integrate the assembly into the union and unity that we are supposed to be symbolising in the deepest way at this point in the rite.

Maybe. It's not clear that the other ways of accompanying the Communion procession are really as inimical to its purpose as you make out. Practical pastoral experience comes into it too: many of us will be fully aware that the Communion procession can be the most difficult place to engage the assembly in song. There are irreconcilables here: a Communion chant simple enough to be sung be the whole assembly without a hymnbook in hand may not be strong enough musically or textually to bear repetition through the whole of the rite.

Anyway, all I'm really saying is let's not be dogmatic. There's more than one way to do it.

(In my own place of worship, we always have a song for the assembly during the Communion procession! We depart from liturgical norms in usually having a choir piece after Communion - this is a vastly better place than the preparation of the gifts for a setting of Ave Verum etc., and it often seems fitting to put the polyphonic-setting-of-the-Communion-antiphon there, if we have one to offer. It's not such a violation of the rubrics - since in this country we defer the psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn to the end of Mass, this is a good moment for contemplation, and the music can aid this.)

M.

[Tsume Tsuyu]

In our parish, the choir I sing with has been using antiphons and psalms to accompany the Communion procession for a while now. We begin singing as soon as the Priest receives Communion, and finish when the last person has received. We rely heavily, but not exclusively, on the Psallite collection. Sometimes, there’s a suitable Taize chant, or a psalm with enough verses and an easy to remember refrain. We always reproduce the words (and sometimes the notes too) on our weekly words/music sheet, and we usually indicate that the song is for the communion procession and invite people sing as they process.

It’s beginning to work for us in that people are beginning to join in, but mcb is right when he says that the Communion procession can be the most difficult place to engage the assembly in song. We have an added difficulty in that the other choir in our parish does the opposite to us and always sings a motet, or something non-inclusive at Communion. This must send very mixed messages to our assembly and so it’s an uphill struggle trying to persuade them to join in with us.

What we have pretty much abandoned is just singing a song or hymn at Communion – unless it’s something like Joncas’ Take and Eat which has lots of verses and an easy to remember refrain.

On balance, I think I prefer using the processional antiphons and psalms. I definitely prefer them to using a hymn since, unless one knows all the words to all the verses, it’s impossible to process and sing without carrying a hymn book up to Communion. I prefer the idea of a contemplative choir-only piece to a regular hymn, I think.

I’ve read all the extracts from the various documents that have been posted and it seems that the instruction is not at all clear! How are we supposed to do as we’re told when it’s not clear what we’re being told? Perhaps it’s not meant to be clear, leaving us to do what works best in our own parishes, but that relies upon whoever is in charge making a considered decision about how to do things, and not just imposing their view on everyone else.

[Southern Comfort]

There are multiple variants of the text <snip> All but the last make explicit reference to water (unda can mean 'water' as well as 'wave', and that's what it means here)

We could spend a long time arguing about minutiae like this, but let's not. Re-read that Isaiah bit about "From her I send flowing peace like a river" for an idea of the "flowing" implications of unda, which does not necessarily mean 'water' here just because you say it does.

and in any case it looks as though those in the know argue for the more explicit fluxit aqua et sanguine as the authentic form of words. This is also the version in the 'official' Roman text, e.g. in the Liber Usualis.

But it's not the text in the motets that we're talking about.

But in any event, it is quite clear that in general the Roman Rite's first preference is for a communion psalm with an antiphon, which implies participation by the congregation.

Implies? I think it's hard to make that argument from first principles, so to speak, from the Rite

Look at the history of the rite. And look at CTM 213. Antiphon + psalm is definitely the rite's first preference here, as at the Introit.

after all, the Communion antiphon, strictly speaking, is historically a chant item not for congregational singing at all.

This is simply not true. Originally this derived from an antiphon for the people, with psalm verses sung by a schola. By as early as the 4th century the choir had taken it over, but that's not to say that its origins don't lie elsewhere.

I've no problem with the idea that the Communion song can be sung by all, or even that it's better when it's sung by all. But it's an unsustainable leap from there to the idea that it can't be sung by a choir.

I'm not saying that the Communion song has to be sung by all, only that at least a refrain or antiphon should be sung by everyone, while the verses may be sung by choir or cantor. The point is, once again "by means of the unity of voices" (GIRM 86). There's no way this can happen if some (most) of those voices have been, in effect, silenced.

The phrase liturgical wallpaper runs the risk of giving offence, I'd suggest.

It was not meant to be offensive, merely provocative. The fact is that, often enough, that's exactly what it is: liturgical background music. No one is really listening to it; it's merely a beautiful noise surrounding the communicants and which can enable them to retreat into an individual moment of communion with the Lord rather than an awareness that this is in fact a communal moment of communion with the Lord and with each other in the Lord.

All these modes of singing are prayer in one form or another, and different communities have different needs and different means of expressing them. I'd no more call the output of a trained choir singing a polyphonic setting of the Communion antiphon wallpaper, than a primary school choir singing Bernadette Farrell's Bread of Life, or a music group singing the latest from Psallite to an assembly for whom the penny hasn't yet dropped that this is their musical moment rather than the music group's.

I think there's a world of difference between a polyphonic motet and BF's Bread of Life with its refrain for all, and a Psallite Song for the Table, once again with its refrain for all. The fact that the penny hasn't dropped is the fault of the clergy and musicians - see below. I think you're using the "different needs and different means" as an excuse for inaction.

There are irreconcilables here: a Communion chant simple enough to be sung be the whole assembly without a hymnbook in hand may not be strong enough musically or textually to bear repetition through the whole of the rite.

I don't agree. Composers have been working at this area for 35 years and more, and there are plenty of examples in the repertoire of Communion songs and extended Lamb of God settings which do precisely bear repetition through the rite.

Anyway, all I'm really saying is let's not be dogmatic. There's more than one way to do it.

Indeed there is. However, the real task for us is to discern the better ways and work at them, rather than allowing less satisfactory ways to persist.

We depart from liturgical norms in usually having a choir piece after Communion - this is a vastly better place than the preparation of the gifts for a setting of Ave Verum etc., and it often seems fitting to put the polyphonic-setting-of-the-Communion-antiphon there, if we have one to offer. It's not such a violation of the rubrics - since in this country we defer the psalm or other canticle of praise or a hymn to the end of Mass, this is a good moment for contemplation, and the music can aid this.

This is what still happens in some places in the USA - the post-communion "choir meditation" piece. And they are trying to get rid of it, having realised that not only is it in breach of liturgical norms but also that frequently it can come across as "the time when we all have to sit and wait while the choir shows off" (yes, I know it's judgemental language, but this is what people say).

CTM 215 says:

When Communion is completed, the whole assembly may observe a period of total silence. In the absence of all words, actions, music or movement, a moment of deep corporate stillness and contemplation may be experienced. Such silence is important to the rhythm of the whole celebration and is welcome in a busy and restless world.
- Silence and true stillness can be achieved if all, the assembly and its ministers, take part in it.
- As an alternative or addition to silent contemplation, a psalm or song of praise may be sung. Since there should normally have been singing during Communion, silence may be more desirable.

I think this last bullet point is important. If your Communion Song has in fact lasted all through Communion (and I'm glad to hear that you do have one, with refrain for the assembly), silence will be welcome, even necessary. For me, this is not the time for a choir meditation. This is in fact the point at which the singers and musicians will receive themselves, unobtrusively, before joining in the communal contemplative silence.

I think CTM ought also to have envisaged the possibility that after this silence all stand and sing the song or hymn of praise (cf. what Gelineau said about this in the columns of M&L several years ago).

[contrabordun]

..which can enable them to retreat into an individual moment of communion with the Lord rather than an awareness that this is in fact a communal moment of communion with the Lord and with each other in the Lord.

I only ask - and I'm being curious, not provocative - because I've learnt things from this thread and others about the way 'the assembly' is supposed to be thinking/acting/behaving at different points that were new to me (and I've read all the documents referred to in this thread at least), but, has anybody here any experience of any attempt to inform/train/form a congregation in what's expected of them, and why? Not just at Communion, but throughout the mass. What were the results?

For me, this is key. We talk a lot about what the documents say the assembly is or is not doing or thinking at particular points, but none of it amounts to a row of beans unless somebody bothers to tell the assembly... They won't pick it up by telepathy or osmosis, or even by any number of changes in what music is fired at them and when.

(Now for the provocative bit )

Indeed there is. However, the real task for us is to discern the better ways and work at them, rather than allowing less satisfactory ways to persist.

I would have thought that an even more real task would be to help those places (90+%?) where practice is unsatisfactory on anybody's definition, before sniping at colleagues about what might or might not be "less" satisfactory (which by definition is still "satisfactory").

[asb]

Whatever option one chooses for Communion music will almost certainly be a compromise. My most recent PP preferred to have instrumental music during Communion, then the "Communion Hymn" start as the last people are receiving, which makes it neither a Communion Hymn nor a Thanksgiving Hymn yet it became accepted practice. The choir would go for Communion first, but as I had to be playing I could never receive myself - not a problem for me, as "doing the right thing" took precedence over my receiving communion. I could of course have gone with the choir, but there would have been a huge silence with shuffling, which is NOT the same as silence after Communion!

[Tsume Tsuyu]

......but also that frequently it can come across as "the time when we all have to sit and wait while the choir shows off" (yes, I know it's judgemental language, but this is what people say).

No time to contribute more to this interesting debate now as I only have a 10 minute lunch break today but it seems to me that this is rather a sweeping statement. It's not what all people say. I've attended Mass at mcb's place of worship and the post-communion choir piece seems to be very well received there. A number of people have commented upon how it is an aid to prayerful reflective meditation and I have always found it to be so.

[Claire B]

What about that long period of silence while altar servers and eucharistic ministers take communion? Is music acceptable there?

As for the communion hymn, my instruction from the PP is very clear. It starts as he returns from the tabernacle after putting away the ciborium.