On this Solemnity of All Saints, may all the would-be saints of God sing praise at every Mass like this and with the same actual participation and faith, hope and love!
And of course this one is rather lovely too, even with this weird English accent!
28 comments:
Father,
Since the comment count is no longer visible on the last post, I clicked on it and found the most recent comments. I noticed John Nolan's reference to Gregorian style responsorial psalms (which would certainly be a big improvement and could help transition us back to the Gregorian style).
Do you still plan to have the chant workshop with Arlene Oost-Zinner in Macon in the coming months? If so, are people from other parish welcome (especially if their pastor encourages their attendance?). Let me know what the plans (if any) are at this point.
Silence is also a sacramental...
Silence at the appropriate time, not out of protest when asked to sing; We are having the chant intensive workshop here by Arlene but you must register through her organization.
Yes, and singing at the appropriate time and by the appropriate people as well... All things in their place and everyone in his or her role.
Fr. McDonald, I agree with you but would like to kindly offer a slight critique before someone offers it cruelly. Singing isn't necessary active participation. It offers the possibility of active participation- spiritual, emotional, physical participation. But sometimes it is only emotional and only physical. Sometimes people aren't actually praying the words. Still, I agree people should sing! Moreover, silence is good at the prescribed times. Silent listening to polyphony can also be good. But, all things considered: singing is praying twice.
So, you would suggest that everyone join in during the schola's singing of Faure's Requiem tomorrow night and those who do not are sinning at least venailly?
The Lord is in His Holy Temple,
The Lord is in His Holy Temple,
Let all the earth keep silence before Him...
Singing what is made possible for the laity, which would mean not singing on a regular basis only that with choirs or scholas can do, although that is not inappropriate for some occasions.
Who decides what those items are that the normal laity can sing?
What are those occasions where it is not inappropriate for the laity to sing complex settings?
Why is it permissible at some Masses for the laity to not sing if this is necessary according to your definition of active participation?
I was grateful to attend an OF Mass of All Saints this morning at which there was no congregational "singing", no non-liturgical "songs". (Also no hand holding or back slapping.)
However, the good-sized congregation joined actively in chanting the entrance and communion antiphons, the Kyrie, Gloria, Sanctus, Agnus Dei, memorial acclamation, and dialog responses using RM 3e English chant. The celebrant chanted the propers and Preface.
It seemed to me that this singing of the Mass itself was actual participation in the liturgy (in contrast to the usual congregational singing). As were the confiteor, Roman canon, and kneeling at the communion for those who wished. (Communion offered only in one kind at this parish.)
I only know Arlene by reputation, but she is a great Gregorianist and an inspired teacher. To sing chant well requires dedication, research, practice, and frequent performance. I know of many excellent choirs who can take Palestrina, Victoria and even more modern composers in their stride, but who can't sing chant to save their lives.
Once people realize that chant, with its non-metrical rhythm and primacy of the text (and yes, it can be done to a certain extent in English although this is a compromise) is more suited to the liturgy than hymns or pop-derived ditties, then we can begin to make progress.
One of the greatest joys in my life is music and singing. I have been gifted with a good voice and good training. Monica Trapani(grade school choir) and Joseph Victor Lauderoute (college chorus) get the lion's share of my thanks.
A refusal to sing is, simply, a refusal to accept the gift of music, a "stick it in your ear" (musical pun intended) directed at God. Very few people really can't sing - many just don't want to be bothered.
The refusal to accept the gift of joy is described in the Catechism (#2094) as the sin of acedia.
My understanding is bishops are traditionally the authority within their diocese who establish what is and isn't proper for congregations to sing. Being raised in a Protestant denomination, and then studying the various musical traditions of Protestantism, all too often music, meaning congregational hymn singing, was relegated to a necessitated three insertions of music: 1) some sort of opening hymn/singing at near the beginning to get the congregation on their feet, 2) some sort of middle hymn/singing to get the people on their feet to prevent boredom, and 3) a hymn at the end to balance out the congregation's participation in response to the 40+ minute sermon the minister just concluded.
While in the OF we do see congregational hymn singing given a more established, even theologically-backed placement, there are a few observations to take into consideration where the role of music, particularly how the congregation's musical responsibility fits in. Firstly, not everyone is comfortable singing. Even if the parish has the erroneous praise music style of hymns, not everyone will or can sing the hymns presented. to further prove this, take a look at the size of a parish's choir in comparison to its overall attendance/membership. Secondly, because there is no difference (insofar as I am aware) between the efficacious-ness of a silent prayer and that of a spoken/sung prayer. It would therefore seem to me that a person who purposefully joins their hearts in silently praying the lyrics of a hymn while others sing the same lyrics aloud, is no less a participant in the function of said hymn. Thirdly, people typically abhor change. By this I refer to "new" hymns. Church musicians will tell you the one thing they dread are the typical responses congregations give to what they perceive as "new" hymns, this meaning hymns they are unfamiliar with, even if the hymn is several centuries old. By the way, over 80% of hymns sung today are at least that age, the music if not the lyrics.
I suppose there is no simple, albeit easy, solution. I know that as a church musician, I tire of always being directed to provide "fill-in" music, especially when it is out of fear of silence. There are times within the Mass that should only be held in silence--music itself is a language built upon the sequencing of sounds and silences--and these moments can be challenging for congregations. And the congregation should be challenged. If we leave Mass as we came in, were we truly present at Calvary?
In summation, we all agree music is an important part of liturgy. If personal responsibilities can increase to where people are not afraid to sing because of social stigma or because they fail to devote time to rehearsals, then perhaps parish music programs can improve.
J. Nolan's second paragraph is important. As much I viscerally loathe Haugen and Hass, I will queasily admit they can be catchy tunes in a pop setting. And this is where they belong. It seems the Bishops could easily encourage (gag) musical gatherings in the Parish Halls where the current hymns could be screeched until the Musical Directors heart is content. But much higher standards should be demanded for the Mass, and a I cannot understand why anyone would want less.
Henry Edwards, that sounds wonderful! I wish I had the opportunity to go to a Mass like that on a regular basis.
Ignotus, Glad you like to sing...no one is rejecting music or singing, only the inappropriate use of it in Mass. No one is rejecting God's gifts. Get with the program.
Bach: "I suppose there is no simple, albeit easy, solution."
Actually, there is indeed a simple and obvious solution. Just sing the music of the Mass that is prescribed in the Roman Missal, making no substitutions (e.g., hymns) even if permitted by questionable loopholes in the norms. That is, sing the ordinary and propers of the Mass using the prescribed chants, and sing nothing at Mass that's not part of the Mass.
This way, no one has to make selections based on personal preferences and criteria, and no one has to bear the brunt of criticism for such decisions.
Unfortunately, most Catholic musicians are unaware that the official music of the Mass is prescribed in the Roman Missal and its ancillaries.
But, Henry, that might interfere with the priest's desire to interject and impose his personal preferences and personality upon his parishioners. And it might cause some parishioners to... GASP... actually participate in the prayer of the Mass in a meaningful, interior fashion as opposed to the current banal, exterior fashion.
Next you'll be telling us not to hold hands during the Lord's Prayer and not say the "This is my body" part along with the priest during our reinactment of the Lord's Supper! Why are you taking away my participation? Don't you know we are all priests, Henry? Don't you know that we are doing God a huge favor by showing up in the first place and we deserve to be at the table just as much as any priest?!?
:-)
Yes, Henry, you are so correct. Marc, in his sarcasm, has also captured it...it ain't about you...you either, Priest.
Hymnody is an essential and intergral part of the celebration of the Eucharist. Does it have to be the standard Four Hynmns every time? No. Does it have to be all choir with no congregational singing? No. Does everyone sing with equal quality and vigor? No.
But the dismissal of congregational singing in toto is not a Catholic notion or practice.
Hymnody is permitted but is the forth option in the GIRM and something many purist feel is a mistake.
The music of the Catholic Mass is the Official Introit, Offertory and Communion antiphons. Then the Kyrie, Gloria, Opening Prayer. Then the Readings to include the Responsorial Psalm. Then the Credo and Intercessions. Then the Prayer over the Gifts, Preface dialogue and preface and then the Sanctus, Mystery of Faith, Great Amen, not to mention the Eucharistic Prayer. Then the Lord's Prayer, priest's embolism, doxology, then the priest prayer for peace, its greeting, and let us offer each other the sign of peace, then the Agnus Dei, After Holy Communion, the post-Commmunion Prayer, blessing and dismissal.
An anthem in addition to the official offertory could be sung and other sacred music at communion. The recessional may have a hymn or nothing.
We've been sold a bill of goods in terms of the four hymn sandwhich of the Low Mass in pre-Vatican II times that has become the norm for a partially sung Mass.
The EF High Mass is the template of what should be sung, but the laity should join in singing the choir or schola parts.
If we had only spent the last 45 years teaching the official Introits to our congregation and in the vernacular, we would have truly be faithful to our heritage.
Pater, I agree with you.
I was reacting to the erroneous idea that it is a venial sin not to sing during Mass. Like the complete dismissal of congregational singing, that condemnation in toto is not a Catholic notion.
On the other hand, it is a Catholic notion that different people might do different things as individuals during the Mass. Some might pray the Rosary, some might pray using a Missal, some might simply watch the priest, while others bow their heads and close their eyes. Some might go to Confession while others remain kneeling and gaze at the Crucifix. Some might attend to a small child. Some might sing and others may not. Some may say the responses out loud, others sotto voce, others not at all.
All these and more are legitimate and spiritually profitable ways to hear and assist at Mass for the laity.
I have to agree with Pater Ignotus when he says "the dismissal of congregational singing in toto is not a Catholic notion or practice". Even with the Graduale Romanum and a polyphonic Mass setting which includes the Credo, the people have the sung responses and, in the OF, the pater Noster.
However, hymnody as generally understood is not, and never has been "an essential and integral part of the celebration of the Eucharist". A hymn is a strophic setting of a text, with each verse set to the same melody. There are many examples in the Office, but none in the Mass. You can describe the Gloria as a prose hymn, but it is through-composed.
Interestingly, the Anglican Church disapproved of singing non-biblical texts until the second half of the 19th century, although the Tractarians (Newman included) made a case for singing the ancient Office hymns in translation.
I find this post ironic. It was Luther and the Protestants who introduced congregational singing of hymns into the communion service, while Rome forbade it in the Mass until recently. Even sequences, which are really hymns in disguise, were mostly banned by Trent. So it seems Luther has been right all along. The next thing will be to call the Church at Rome the Roman Protestant Church..... Seriously, congregational hymns other than the Gloria in excelsis and Creed, if one can call it a hymn, have no place in the Mass. Only the inspired texts of Sacred Scriptures, or occasionally their paraphrase, ought to be sung as the norm; only in rare circumstances could non-inspired human-fabricated texts be sung in the Mass. Of course, human-fabricated texts could always be sung before and after Mass as devotionals.
Another problem with the indiscriminate use of hymns is that we are seduced by their melodies or the energy of the hymn and forget that the melody and the words of the hymn have no place in the Catholic Mass (one might make an argument that one could use hymns in devotionals of some kind). For example there are many beautiful Protestant hymns from the musical point of view, but their words and sounds are clearly Protestant in ethos and theology. Even if no words were sung, the melody is clearly Protestant. But the words too in their theology--these should not be admitted to the Latin Rite Mass which has its own ethos and certainly its own theology, spirituality and devotional qualities. As well, in composing new music or hymns for the Mass, melodies are borrowed from secular genres or hip Broadway productions again creating havoc with our liturgical spirituality and ethos when we hear the tripe that is given to us to sing or simply be entertained by.
RE: Hip Broadway productions...
Ah, yes...how about one to the tune from the musical "Oklahoma:"
'Holy Spirit, as your wind comes sweeping down the plains...'
Or from "The Fantastiks:"
'Try to remember
The Mass we dismembered...'
Or, for laity who insist upon playing Priest, one from, "Annie Get Your Gun:" 'Any Mass you can do, I can do better,
Any Mass yo can do, I can do too!"
Ah, the possibilities...
In Germany they replace not only the Propers, but also parts of the Ordinary (particularly the Gloria and Credo) with hymns set to chorale-like melodies in the Lutheran tradition. This has been going on for decades, and I suspect it is a pre-Conciliar Low Mass practice carried over into the Novus Ordo.
Lutherans sang hymns, and so did English nonconformists (eg Methodists) which is one reason why the Anglicans were so reluctant to allow them into their liturgy. In England at least, both Catholic and Anglican hymn-singing grew up at the same time, the second half of the nineteenth century.
In 1912 the Westminster Hymnal, edited by Sir Richard Runciman Terry, was published and was the only Catholic hymnal authorized by the English hierarchy for the next sixty-odd years. (It should not be confused with a Presbyterian book with the same title which appeared in 1913.) These hymns were sung at extra-liturgical devotions, most of which were abandoned after Vatican II.
Marc, do you even like to sing?
And . . . all the best hymns sound Protestant because they are Protestant, Sine nomine being the best of all.
Post a Comment