This is the official Introit for the Second Sunday of Lent. Would you like this type of chant in place of a metrical hymn with organ accompaniment?
At Saint Joseph Church in Macon, in the past two years the cantor now chants the refrain only of the official Introit which then leads into the metrical congregational hymn. The refrains of the offertory and communion antiphons are chanted this way too but there are additional anthems or songs at these times also. Is this preserving the best of both worlds? For example, having heard the Introit above and the entire psalm that goes with it, at St. Joseph the cantor chanted only its antiphon and then we sang the following as a congregational hymn with organ accompaniment for the rest of the procession, "Take Up your Cross." More verses were sung, but these are the first two; any problem with these compared to singing the entire official psalm text of the Introit?
Take up your cross, the Savior said, if you would my disciple be; take up your cross with willing heart and humbly follow after me.
Take up your cross, let not its weight fill your weak spirit with alarm; My strength shall bear your spirit up, and brace your heart, and nerve your arm.
At a post at The New Liturgical Movement, Jeffrey Tucker writes the following:
Valentín Miserachs, head of the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Music, has repeated his call for a Vatican commission to pronounce on the problem of music in Catholic liturgy. Like many others, he has expressed great regret at the loss of Gregorian chant, and speaks of the widespread ignorance of music among so many. He decries the “anarchy” that persists in parishes and cathedrals around the world, by which he means the tendency for musicians to pull out any music they want and sing it during the processions of the Mass (entrance, offertory, and communion)....
....In any case, the core of the problem is not so much within the ordinary parts of the Mass but during the entrance, offertory, and communion. These are the times when the musical path wanders far away from the liturgical ideal....
....The Church needs to change its current legislation dating from 1967 that permits other texts to replace the proper texts of the Mass.
The problem text came in section 32 of Musicam Sacram: “The custom legitimately in use in certain places and widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs given in the Graduale for the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion, can be retained according to the judgement of the competent territorial authority.”
This sentence seems innocuous. It’s tempting to read past it. Should a legitimate custom be retained? Sure, why not? Actually, what this sentence permitted, for the first time in the history of the universal Church, was the complete throwing out of the Mass propers that had been largely stable throughout the whole history of the Roman Rite and formed the basis of Gregorian chant in the first place. The “indult” quickly became the universal practice.
This is the sentence that needs to be repealed, erased, and replaced, because it is this sentence that unleashed the musical chaos and confusion. This is the reason for why the choir is free to totally ignore the liturgy and sing any old song that they happen to have handy in place of the actual text that the liturgy is asking us to sing....
...What this analysis implies of course is that the core problem we are dealing with today only appears to be about the music. Actually, the core problem is a problem with the words of the Mass itself. The choir must defer to them. It must sing the entrance with the proper text and psalms. It must sing the offertory using the proper text and its Psalms. It must sing the communion with its proper text and Psalms. There is no indult not to. There is no “option four” as it appears in the General Instruction...
For many years now there is a growing moment in the Church to revive Gregorian Chant and to sing it in the vernacular. This chant is being promoted for parts of the Mass that almost every Catholic in the world has not heard since Vatican II for the Entrance Chant (aka, Introit), Offertory antiphon and Communion antiphon. What most every Catholic in the world has heard in place of these "official" chants that are prescribed for every single Mass is the 4th option found in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, "a suitable hymn."
This means that almost every Catholic in the world is deprived of the words of the Mass that are actually prescribed and something else is chosen that is suppose to approximate these words--usually metrical hymns that are happy, peppy and familiar, what would best be described as "devotional music."
What if we threw out our hymnals and only chanted the actual Introit, offertory and communion chants? Would there be rebellion in the pews? I think it would be hard for the congregation to sing a new setting of the chant every Sunday, so the choir, schola or cantor would have to do it for them. Would that be a good thing to stop congregational participation. Or these chants could be set to a responsorial style of singing which the congregation simply singing the refrain, similar to the responsorial Psalm. We do that every week to different melodies and words and everyone does it quite well.
How would you feel if we didn't sing congregational hymns at the entrance, offertory and communion times and used exclusively the chants provided for the Mass?
35 comments:
Chants or no chants, I'd be just FINE with eliminating those songs. In fact, it would be an improvement 99 percent of the time.
That's like asking us if we'd be more comfortable if someone took the shoe out from under the sofa cushion.
Were I lucky enough to be in such a parish, I might think I had gone to heaven. Chant is most conducive to worship and reflection.
"Is this preserving the best of both worlds?"
No, I'd call it preserving both the liturgical world and the non-liturgical world.
The Introit chant is a prescribed part of the liturgy. An introductory hymn is not a prescribed part of the liturgy. Though a processional hymn preceding the liturgy is fine.
I'd be more than fine with it, I'd be delighted with it.
Regarding arguments about the Bugnini Protestantization of the Mass: As a former Protestant, I see all too clearly elements in the NO that come straight out of various Protestant Liturgies, and both the use of metrical (and other) hymns and the choice of specific hymns are a couple of the strongest aspects of that. yet in most parishes I've attended, the "music ministry" (for lack of a better term) is executed much more poorly than it typically is in Protestant churches.
This leads to an interesting dynamic. Protestant eucharistic liturgies, in a sense, may be seen as either fatally defective Masses or even parodies of the Mass (no valid Holy Orders and explicit rejection of Catholic sacramental/Eucharistic theology, despite many outward similarities). So by incorporating elements of these parodies of the Mass, the church makes some elements of the Mass a parody of a parody. (Nowhere is this more evident than when "A Mighty Fortess is our God" played during a Mass. Why not become more inclusive and have a muezzin recite the Adhan for the Introit? We're all Abrahamists, so this would be a wonderful sign of ecumenism, right?
Of course, the Church has permitted the use of the Anglican liturgy, suitably reworked, to be used for Mass. The difference is that Liturgy has strong and undeniably Catholic roots. Protestant hymnody, like the Adhan, does not. The roots of both, in fact, are antithetical to Catholicism.
It makes you wonder about the Advent wreath.
A5, part of the problem with the reform or revision of the Mass and then its implementation is that prior to Vatican II, the High Mass or Sung Mass was an anomaly in most parishes. Parishes had multiple Masses but the best attended were Low Mass. On Sunday it was allowed to have hymns at low Mass, and opening, offertory, commuion and recessional. Of course the Mass itself was spoken and the offiical Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons were spoken by the priest.
This style of Mass was then brought to the vernacular Mass and the emphasis remained on hymns. Except now there was more flexibility and you could sing some parts of the Mass, recite others and do a hodgepodge, which was not permitted when prior to the Council you either had a low Mass or a High Mass.
Then all kinds of new vernacular hymns were sought and many borrowed from Protestantism. But that was not really what the renewal should have been. It should have been singing the Mass, all of it and that should have become the norm, not Mass with some hymns sung at it like in the low Mass prior to Vatican II. I agree, though, that much of hymnody that isn't of our Catholic tradition or new stuff (which isn't of our Catholic tradition either) corrupts the spirituality of the Mass and the theology of the Mass. Clearly Amazing Grace, How Great Thou Art and A Mighty Fortress have a Protestant spirituality, you can almost smell it when singing these and this Protestant spirituality while not evil or anything isn't of our Catholic type of spirituality at all nor of our Catholic identity.
"I think it would be hard for the congregation to sing a new setting of the chant every Sunday, so the choir, schola or cantor would have to do it for them."
I can't vouch for this personally, but folks at TheChantCafe.com say that people readily adapt to chanting the "Simple English Propers", even more that the metrical hymns that many people in probably every U.S. parish don't bother to sing. One might remember that the Church's chant tradition comes from monasteries populated by men who had no facility for singing, couldn't read music, etc.
As to participation, I have tended lately to remain silent during the singing of the more egregiously banal hymns. And the hugely protestant ones.
Also, now that I have my new Missal, I am beyond frustrated at what is done to the responsorial psalms. As often as not, I can't see a relationship between the text and what is actually sung.
Bill, there is absolutely no reason why the Responsorial Psalm is not chanted and the official one for the day with its proper texts, substituting this with something else should have ended in the 1990's!
Father, what I experience in my parish is that invariably it is sung (except at daily Mass), and at the very best, the response is recognizable, though often with words dropped, and re-ordered. But as often as not, the verses are very greatly altered. Almost always, I note dropped words or phrases, usually softening the meaning. Sometimes entire verses are dropped. At worst, the response itself is recognizable, and none of the verses are.
I am guessing that the volume from which these are sung was not ordered to be replaced when the new translation came in. Could that be the case?
"I think it would be hard for the congregation to sing a new setting of the chant every Sunday, so the choir, schola or cantor would have to do it for them."
The TLM parishes I've been to don't seem to bear this out. Surely a relatively larger parish, such as St. Joseph, could pull off the same thing that a parish with a small number of parishioners can.
"... part of the problem with the reform or revision of the Mass and then its implementation is that prior to Vatican II, the High Mass or Sung Mass was an anomaly in most parishes."
Wouldn't the answer to this be the bishop telling priests to say at least one High Mass per Sunday? Surely creating a new Liturgy from thin air was a little heavy-handed in responding to this concern. Also, how did creating more variety answer this problem - if the problem was the Mass being too "low", how does making every Mass different from every other Mass answer this problem?
Finally, I don't think that your thoughts that the Low Masses were better attended were necessarily true then and they certainly aren't true now - usually the High Masses are standing room only and are the main Mass for the parish's Sunday, where the Low Mass is earlier in the day for those who might have to work or have other obligations. At any rate, making up a new Mass and having more hymns was not the answer to this "problem" (I question whether it is a problem that there were too many Low Masses: surely everyone knew that the Low Mass was a concession and the Solemn High Mass was the "ordinary" form for the Mass, but not every parish would have a subdeacon to accomplish the Solemn High Mass. I think there may be some confusion here about the High Mass and the Solemn High Mass).
Fr. McD, thanks for the enlightening comments. I must show my own hypocrisy by stating that if we must sing Protestant hymns in Mass, I have my favorites, and some of them may well not pass theological muster. But my choices are largely based on aesthetics (and my own memories and experiences) rather than theology. What can I say but mea culpa? :-)
To digress, I've just put a legal analysis of the HHS rule on my blog that may interest you. The type is still white-on-black, but I've used a large font, and you can also highlight it to make it black-on-white.
As is to be expected, a great many aspects of the issue Fr. Allan calls (rightly) into question remain largely unaddressed. That is also to be expected, this is not a problem that has an immediate and “magic bullet” solution at hand, despite what many of my confreres and opinion-expressing faithful advance.
I am a parish DM, have been for four decades, and a “fellow” founder of Chant Café. I believe Jeffrey Tucker solicited my participation due to my lengthy and broad experiences in “mainstream” parishes and cathedrals in both urban and rural dioceses, and that I’m conversant in virtually all forms/styles of worship music styles, save for the “Polka Mass!” Currently I manage music ministry for a four parish merged cluster that is thriving, growing with 9K plus registered families. Blah blah blah. Now that we’re passed that, were I able to, I’d exclusively attend and serve Mass in the EF (Missa Cantata, Missa Solemnis) 24/7/365 were it in my provenance to effect that among our parish. And everyone, including my pastor, knows that. And they also know that my preference does not equate to dictatorial mandates that flow upward and downward from my office.
I find it, again as expected, that the converted Protestant commentator provides one of the more clearer assessments of one of the most obvious failures that has been pandemic for centuries: poor performance practice on the part of organists, choristers, “cantors,” ensembles, scholas, mariachis, kiddie choirs, LifeTeen shredders! It is so common to ascribe the “Cool Hand Luke” axiom of “failure to communicate” to the repertoire rather than the delivery and then castigate only the composition or its style. But because we’re not Mennonites, and as Tom Day pointed out the systematic series of cultural screwups that landed we Catholics in this “mess,” doesn’t mean that “chant” will remedy the morass, or that it’s impossible to “get” a whole congregation singing the RCC equivalent of the National Anthem, “I am the bread of life” with their full-verve on.
There’s lots of good, bad and indifferent music to go around that’s been on simmer, as I’ve said, for centuries in our “sacred treasury.” OTOH, our friend also said, show me a musician who EVER programs “A mighty fortress…” at a RCC Mass and you’ll find a dysfunctional understanding of sacred music and theology, even if the quire sounds like the Cambridge Singers under Rutter. But if one then turns to our own past and programs some gems from the Haugen of his day, Nicholai Montani and some of the contents of the St. Gregory Hymnal, you will still encounter a similar dysfunction.
This combox is not the place to enumerate the hundreds of aspects that affect, and not necessarily afflict, contemporaneous performance practice in St. Normals all over the globe. And that’s part of the problem- given the ease, comfort and shelter of the WWWeb, the current cliché of the “Echo Chamber” syndrome is a disincentive for disgruntled critics to engage reasoned, reasonable, informed and patient dialogue with parish musicians, pastors/administrators and most notably, bishops.
Complaining into the air won’t solve bupkis. Encouraging a pastor to make small to large critical moves regarding personnel, hymnal/missal/repertoire delivery means, and catechesis that is ongoing and is self-evident from the well-articulated ritual practices at every liturgy will lift the gorilla off the living room floor. It’s a start.
But caveat emptor, one of the things Fr. Allan has been clairvoyant about somewhat under the radar of late is- should we expect that there is an endgame strategy regarding the rites themselves, and the cultural aspects that adorn them? I’ll leave that to everyone’s imagination.
"should we expect that there is an endgame strategy regarding the rites themselves, and the cultural aspects that adorn them?"
For those of us who lack Charles' imagination and/or Father M's clairvoyance, what might this endgame strategy be? And whose?
Charles, thanks so much for your thoughtful comment. My dilemma with chanting the propers is that I personally find Gregorian Chant tedious all the time, especially in English. Since I can remember hymns have been a part of the Mass, although I know that technically these are not. As well, we have many, many Protestant converts who love singing hymns and like the mix of Protestant ones that we have borrowed. To stop singing hymns altogether would be somewhat revolutinary at this point. With our EF Mass, where the schola does chant everything, we still have an English processional hymn to get the liturgical procession to the altar, then it ceases and the Asperges takes place. We also sing a recessional hymn.
As far as chant, the one I include on this post I would find boring Sunday after Sunday with no hymn sung. Now if it were set to Anglican Chant with the people singing the refrain, I might like it. So I suspect that if I feel this way as a priest who appreciates Gregorian Chant but may not want it every Sunday in big doses, I suspect young Catholic families with small children as well as older Catholics might cringe at only Gregorian melodies each Sunday for the Entrance.
Father, as an older Catholic, I would treasure each Mass at which chant was used.
My entire family would be very happy to experience Chant and Sacred Polyphony at every Mass instead of having to sing hymns (especially if they are from Glory and Praise Vol. 2).
I saw a black composer on EWTN last year and he is composing NEW Sacred Polyphony, and it is absolutely breathtaking! He does a fine job of drawing new music within traditional lines. I wish I had thought to write down his name, but I was so blown away by his music, all thoughts that were not concerned with God were removed from my brain.
I guess what I am trying to say is that contrary to what some modernists think, a return to Chant and Sacred Polyphony is NOT "turning back the clock", but rather is a means to reorient the Church in the right direction. In their overzealousness to modernize the Church, the modernists have led Her a bit off-coarse, and it is time to steer Her back in the right direction. New music is not out of the question, but it needs to conform to the standards of tradition and beauty if it expects to be included within the sacred rite of the Mass.
Remembering the Mali music and dancing of a previous post, I think it would be appropriate if the music were REQUIRED to incorporate the text of the Introit, e.g., in the tune. Another example, from a slightly more conventional perspective I can think of relatives who love their ukulele tunes in Mass.
Whatever the value of the tunes, I am adamant about the words. That is my largest departure with the Haugen/Haas monstrosities because they are often borrowed tunes from beautiful Celtic or African Gospel sources married to abysmally poor theology.
Breaking the music down to even more fundamental elements, I can easily conceive of a glorious Mass chanted to very basic (without the extra layers) Ghanian Rhythmic patterns based on accurate translations. As much as I love the Gregorian Chants, I think their patterns might not support slavishly accurate translations to, say, Mandarin. Yet I have enjoyed many hours of Chinese Opera and believe that a series of similar tonal compositions could be created to support a true translation of the Latin Prayers and Texts.
This is not an insurmountable problem if we can simply enforce the theology and remove the temptation to turn the Mass into a musical performance.
rcg
@ Carol H:
I think the composer you are referring to is Kevin Allen.
http://www.ccwatershed.org/allen/
Fr. McDonald: "I suspect young Catholic families with small children as well as older Catholics might cringe at only Gregorian melodies each Sunday for the Entrance."
I can't imagine this being done, or even envisioned, in either EF or OF.
At every papal Mass in St. Peter's Basilica, the introit is chanted only when the ministers reach the sanctuary (altar area), with something else played or sung for the preceding processional.
Likewise, at every EF high Mass I attend, a congregational hymn is sung for the processional, and the introit is chanted only when the prayers at the foot of the altar begin.
What's essential to regain a proper sense of the liturgy, is to understand when the liturgy begins--with the Introit. Of course, in a congregational setting, the liturgy generally will or should be preceded by the processional, which sets the scene as we "gather" for the beginning of the liturgy.
But why the enduring confusion between gathering and beginning, two entirely different things.
Carol H, I believe you may be thinking of Kevin Allen.
The place where I go to Mass, the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, in DC, does what you describe for the Solemn Noon Mass that you have for your Masses Father. The choir chants the introit refrain (either in English or Latin, either to the Gregorian melody or a polyphonic one, composed by one of the staff musicians)which is followed by the Entrance Hymn.
The same thing happens for Communion, where the choir sings the Communion antiphon, which is followed by either a hymn or a psalm, with the people singing the refrain and the cantor the verses.
David, I like that and I think that should be encouraged by bishops to become the norm. The question is how to educate bishops and get them to make it the norm? Tell Mrs. Gingrich hi!
Fr. McDonald, the National Basilica Shrine is hardly an exemplar of proper liturgy.
GIRM #47-50 provide that the liturgy begins with the "Entrance Chant", immediately followed by the Sign of the Cross. There is no provision in the norms for an intervening song, which can only serve to interrupt the liturgical tone set by the chant.
However, there is nothing wrong with a song preceding the liturgy. We simply must return to some awareness of what is proper to the liturgy and what is not.
Thank you Brad and Anon!
I absolutely LOVE Kevin Allen's music- it is so reverent and beautiful it leads my heart contemplation of God's Majesty and Might.
I hope God blesses him with many years and more compositions!
Which reminds me that, according to the writings of authorities like Msgr. Richard Shuler, that the shared goal of sacred music at Vatican II was to rid the Mass of the songs that had begun to infest the Sunday low Mass. This led to the flexibility to mix chant and recitation, so that the Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons, etc. could be chanted at low Mass as well as at high Mass.
Unfortunately, in the aftermath of the Council, the distracting songs were not eliminated, but instead set in concrete in the form of the "4-hymn sandwich". Only when these distractions are completely eliminated from the liturgy proper will the liturgical implementation of the Council be finally complete (or at least seriously begun).
Henry, I thought the "distracting songs" were all the utterly banal writings of Haugen, Haas, Schutte, Farrell, and other denizens of the OCP. ;)
@Henry-
This is a bit redundant perhaps, as the notion of "grafting" or "stuffing" has gotten a fair amount of attention in the last year or so, as so many places (my own included, engage in the practice.) The proper processionals are, in this scheme, "wed" to the fourth option "alius cantus aptus" that is presumably meant for congregational singing. There's some ambivilence in many quarters about this. Strict adherents cite that propers are the juridical office of a schola or cantor only, so to satisfy a presumption of a "lack" of FACP, one grafts a hymn/song to those moments, the order of which is also hotly debated. But the GIRM for the OF does not specify such an option. However, a secretary publicly responded to a letter about this practice recently saying that it isn't illicit, and in fact cited it almost as S.O.P. at pontifical Masses; the response wasn't legalistic, and almost blase.
Ok, to the "endgame" issue. I believe FRAJM has discussed his vision of a tangible, real convergence of the EF/OF via the deliberation and promulgation of a unified rite, vernacular or Latin. I'll let him flesh that out again.
For my part, I'm very aware of many chant scholars and proponents who quietly voice concerns about how VERNACULAR chant projects such as the SEP (Adam Bartlett), others by great composers Richard Rice, Arlene Oozt Zinner, Aristotle Esquerra, Jeff Ostrowski, Frs. Columba Kelly and Sam Weber, and even hosts of others, will serve the larger goal of restoring what they consider to be the rightful mandate of the use of Latin, in either form, as the principle language of the Church. I personally, like FRAJM, don't really have a dog in this hunt and tend to cover the waterfront. But there is some appreciable tension between the aims of RotR folks who see these as necessary mortar in the "brick by brick" scenario, and those of the NLM persuasion who would have us pivot on the dime right now.
I'm personally up to my own eyeballs in keeping our bricks organized in my own joint, so I'm shying away from the national debate.
But I kinda live by two axioms: 1. All politics are local; and 2. there are 360 degrees on a compass.
Best I got for ya now.
Henry, do you go to an FSSP parish or a Diocesan TLM? I wonder if it is more common for the FSSP, SSPX, or Institute of Christ the King to have a vernacular hymn during the Procession?
My experience is limited to only one FSSP parish and one Institute Church, but I haven't seen this at either one... yet, I've been to 2 Diocesan TLMs and this happened at both of those.
To clarify my last question to Henry: the "this" I'm referring to is a vernacular processional hymn.
It has been my experience with the FSSP to have the Salve Regina sung in Latin as the closing hymn (for the High Mass - I don't recall a closing hymn at the Low Mass). But, again, my experience is limited to one FSSP parish in the Archdiocese of Atlanta.
Marc, I presently attend a diocesan TLM, but in the past I've seen congregational processional and/or recessional hymns at both diocesan and FSSP TLMs, numerous cases of both. I believe this is acceptable, even from a very traditional viewpoint, since these hymns occur before or after Mass, not within the liturgy itself.
Thanks, Henry. I wasn't trying to be "more traditional than thou." I was genuinely curious. This is part of the problem we have with reclaiming the Tradition - an entire generation or more has deprived us of it, so it is difficult to know what the Tradition was and it is even more difficult to know what the local customs were. We can tend to get myopic in terms of what we think the tradition to have been based on our limited experiences with one traditional parish or group (Fr. Chad Ripperger, FSSP, has a nice audio talk about the problems with reclaiming the tradition and this is high among them - http://www.sensustraditionis.org/multimedia.html -- look for the series on "Tradition").
So, I was curious as to your insight since I can tell from other things you've posted that you've been involved in restoring the tradition for much longer than I have! Thank you again!
Protestant metrical hymns simply do not fit Catholic worship or spirituality. There are a handful of marvelous, theologically correct, Christologically powerful Protestant hymns ("A Mighty Fortress" leads the list. Read Luther's words, not the re-written Catholic version, and forget it is by him. What hymn could be more comforting and at the same time so majestic?), but they do not reflect Catholic Christology.
Preaching, the Word, is the primary sacrament for Protestants. The words of the hymns are the important thing and support prot theology, thus they are presented in metrical, often rhyming verse which appeals to the logical/rational brain. The tunes are often from public domain folk songs or sections from Romantic classical compositions. These are perfect venues for delivering theological truths to the analytical mind. The music itself appeals to the "right brain," but in such a way as to convey a compelling theological "homily" to the "left brain." The closest you get in a prot hymn to chant is maybe some heavy duty minor key or a tiny bit of counterpoint.
Now, I have always thought that the beauty of Catholic worship and theology is that Catholic dogma and doctrine are scrupulously analytical, logical, and scholarly. Only Calvin and Barth in the protestant world come anywhere near Thomas or Augustine, and then only marginally.
But, Catholic liturgy...I mean the TLM and traditional Catholic spirituality, moves us immediately out of that analytical, left brain stance and into our hearts and depths. How wonderful that our liturgy, shaped and nurtured by the Real Presence, reaches beneath the analytical mind, strips away the pretentions of rational argument, and opens us to Christ's Presence through our deeper selves. That is what chant does, that is what the gestures, the prayers, the vestments, the rubrics are designed to do...Catholic worship confronts us with the Mystery. It is also why ad orientum is important..it removes the logical argument, the face to face discussion, and directs us toward God the Father in His majesty and Christ the Lamb on the altar.
That is why, when I leave a protestant church, I feel that I have just listened to a political harangue with which I agree and say, "YES!!!" But, leaving Mass I feel humbled, quiet, and contemplative.
Once again, the Holy Catholic Church addresses both the analytical and the non-rational aspects of our spirituality, and has done so for hundreds of years. This is a treasure, a Gift, to be fiercely defended. It is not to be defiled by a bunch of secular/humanist enemies within the gates.
Thanks, Marc. I attended the Atlanta FSSP parish in the 1990's. To amplify a bit, at our TLM in Knoxville, the closing hymn of high Mass itself is the specified seasonal Marian hymn -- Regina Caeli in Eastertide, Salva Regina after Pentecost, etc. -- during which the priest and altar boys remain at the foot of the altar. Immediately thereafter the recessional hymn starts for the recession.
But this sort of thing is a matter of local custom, not a question of rubrics. And local customs likely varied even more before Vatican II than they do now.
I've been to your TLM there in Knoxville (and I'll be there again this August), but it was several months ago, so I don't remember the hymn situation.
I did notice that your local custom was different than Atlanta in that the people genuflect during the Aspereges when the priest walks by (they also do this in St. Louis). The local custom is really a treasure of the TLM as it is the manifestation of the community's piety. There are similar experiences in the Novus Ordo, but they all tend toward negative aspects of personal piety in my experience.
Post a Comment