The Recovering Choir Director

If you know your church documents and papal allocutions on music, there is not really anything new here. Should there be?

In Section 7, His Holiness writes about the preservation of Gregorian chant across the ages. He concludes by saying, “Gregorian chant, therefore, today as well continues to be an element of UNITY [my emphasis] in the Roman liturgy.” Deacon Havard, call your office!

Speaking of offices, it is interesting that the office of psalmist was specifically mentioned in the chirography’s list of musicians but skipped over in the English summaries. Conversely, I do not remember reading about “cantors” in a previous official document.

I appreciate the explicit support for real organs as well, of course. All we need is some money!

>From the CNS link: Secular music is not appropriate at Mass, the pope said, nor are “elitist” attempts to “introduce into the liturgy ancient or contemporary compositions which, while perhaps having artistic value, indulge in a language that is incomprehensible.”

What constitutes indulging in an incomprehensible language? Is Latin and incomprehensible language, or Spanish to those who don’t speak it? Is he talking about an incomprehensible musical language, music that people don’t understand? What does this statement mean?

Musical language, Miss Jane. The Pope will never say anything against Latin (the language he uses to celebrate Mass when in his own chapel) or any other spoken language.

This is an unfortunate splicing of the original sentence from section 6:

“On the other hand are to be avoided, in general, those forms of ‘inculturation’ of an elitist stripe, which introduce old or contemporary compositions which are perhaps of artistic value, but which indulge in a language which is most incomprehensible.”

This would have to be a reference to music which merely draws attention to itself and does not communicate the meaning of the words, whether because its texture is too thick, there are meaningless repetitions (especially to fit a preconceived melody), or, perhaps in modern days, is too jumpy in melodic line or rhythm. The text always comes first and communication — in terms of the numinous! — is paramount.

This is an argument for some objective norms outside “pastoral considerations (’I like it,’ or better/worse yet, ‘Everybody — in my culture, peer group, etc. — likes it’).”

Fourth try: My translation should have read

“which introduce INTO THE LITURGY old or contemporary compositions”

CNS is vanquishing me! Sorry.

What do you mean if the gospel verse “deosn’t san metrically?”
To what tune are you singing them?

We (to the consternation of our litrugist, who winces at the sound of chant,) are still doing various post VCII alleluias, People’s celtic, even the worst of Haugen, but the verse under a new director is always “cut and pasted” in, done to one of the psalm tones, and words done exactly as they appear in the lectionary.

Gb, we also use the Celtic Alleluia when we do MOC — the reasoning being that the purported gospel alleluia to MOC is no such thing — the words and from are a flight of the composer/lyricist’s imagination.
We do a psalm tone verse with the Celtic, so that we can do the right gospel acclamation.
I thought I had read somewhere that this was how the Celtic alleluia eas originall intended to be sung that the metric “verses” were something Walker tacked on to O’Carroll alleluia.
Can anyne confirm or deny?