The Recovering Choir Director

Definitely “A”.
To boot - with the use of the Introit instead of an Entrance Hymn (or as the “about-me-modernists” like to say: “Gathering Song” - yuk!) is not just “singing at Holy Mass” but “singing the Holy Mass”.

BMP

Choice “B” most often reflects my state at Mass. I love having a Liber/Graduale in front of me, at a sung Mass, so I can participate in as many of the chants as possible. I especially like when there is a choir present, so I can blend in, otherwise I keep it pretty low-key (figuratively, not literally 8-). I always avoid “competing” with the soloist, when some verse, or part of a verse, is being intoned. Chanting the Mass, even in the pews, brings me great joy.

While, when I hear the ancient chants of the Orthodox and Catholic Church (be they Roman or her sister chants [Old Roman, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, or Gallican]or Byzantine and her sister chants [Arabic, Slavic, Georgian, Armenian, etc], I generally “know that I am connected to something far older and bigger than my own world.” So I suppose that “A” is a good answer.

But I’ve had a good education, and have been studying latin liturgy for a long time, and so I suppose that “B” would be my final answer.

I was pretty much able to follow along with the Papal Requiem without much problem, and as a matter of fact found EWTN’s “translator”, Bishop Foley, to be an annoying distraction. I much preferred CNN, with the low key approach of the translator, who allowed me to hear His Eminence, Cardinal Ratzinger, with his beautiful Continental/Italianate Latin accent, and to hear the competent work of the cantor and choir.

Good question. My general reaction on hearing a Gregorian Introit is sursum corda! My Latin isn’t great, but I try to listen carefully and understand the words if possible. If I can’t understand them, I try to enter into the spirit of prayer of the whole Church in a more general way.

If I’m going to Mass (for example at the local Poor Clare Monastery) where I expect I might hear chant, I sometimes bring along my Gregorian Missal.

I listened to the Pope’s funeral on NPR. During the Canon of the Mass, the translator gave a pretty literal translation, NOT the ICEL version, which was a lovely surprise. The commentary was so minimal, there were a couple of times I wished he had said more, like during the Lord’s Prayer, he didn’t translate, and didn’t even mention that it was the Lord’s Prayer.

None of the above, I suppose. The only time I would encounter this is when I’m on retreat, so I’d just open the monastery hymnal and sing along. I have a passable understanding of Latin so it wouldn’t be a distraction in that sense.

It would be distracting if the community wasn’t expected to sing the introit. I’d put that in the same basket as good liturgical dance: artistic, but not in keeping with the mainstream expectations of singing at the liturgy.

Liturgical muzak, however well done, is for concerts, not liturgy.

Liturgical muzak??? With all due respect, Todd, this is so wrong on so many levels . . . .

my reaction on hearing the chanted latin antiphon is, indeed, sursum corda! my latin is far from perfect or even polished, but the latin rite is the only one i *know*, and as long as the words are enunciated clearly i can usually pick out which introit it is. i follow in my gregorian missal, the one with neume notation, or else in my latin/français missal published by the monks of le barroux. for me the greatest difficulty at a mass comes when the introit is skipped altogether and there’s not even a “gathering prayer” … i tend to read the latin proper to myself in those cases, but the mass immediately loses focus for me.

Leaving aside the matter of quality (and assuming it’s very good) dance as performance has much in common with music performance. Read the Notitiae on liturgical dance. Do its principles ever apply to music performance in churches? Don’t kid youselves church music cannot embody ego on the part of its performers.

Mark’s quotes are apt and reinforce my point: they outlines not just choices, but a hierarchy of choices. Choir alone is the last option: and there’s no getting around it. It is possible that a choral performance can foster the unity of the assembly, but probably not when they are used to singing and expressing faith with their own singing.

Sorry you feel I’m baiting, but at least I answered the call for input. I doubt our host is particularly edified by your opinions of me or vice versa.

Regarding Todd’s comment on “liturgical muzak”, I would invite him to flesh out in detail what he means, either here or in his own page. There is an ambiguity which deserves further expression.

If his meaning is that he believes that music without understandable words is the equivalent of elevator music, and has no place in the Divine Liturgy, then I would tend to agree with him.

If his meaning is that any use of Latin would tend to be music without understanding, then I would tend to disagree with him. I am not a laudator tempori acti, or one to praise the pre-1967 era. I was a child and an altar boy at that time, and remember well the low Latin Mass, which was mainly a thing to get through and over in those days. Nonetheless, in the course of learning Latin, and learning the great music of the past (particularly Gregorian Chant), I have come to find an angelic quality of both beauty and intellect which I believe deserve a place in RC church services.

If Todd means that the chant traditions of East and West are merely pretty music without meaning in themselves, then I would have to disagree entirely. We all had the opportunity of seeing in the Requiem Mass of His late Holiness, John Paul the Great, the transcendent beauty of both the Latin Novus Ordo mass, and the Greek and Arabic Orthodox Funeral Service. Additionally, much has been done to bring the Eastern chant traditions into vernacular languages such as English. To ignore either the beauty of chant in the original or the power of chant in the vernacular would be short-sighted and foolish.

Finally, there is an interpretation that I am hopeful that Todd did not mean. It could be that he does not understand that the chant traditions were in fact inspired by the angelic choirs. This view has been held by the great saints of East and West, and has been stated most cogently by His Holiness, Benedict XVI in his sermon: “In the Presence of the Angels I Will Sing Your Praise”. The text of this sermon can be found at the following web address: http://www.adoremus.org/10-12-96-Ratzi.html. A brief quotation as regards that view is as follows:

It is, therefore, not at all the case that man contrives something and then sings it, but rather the song comes to him from the angelic choirs, and he must raise his heart on high so that it can harmonize with the tone which comes to him.

If it were the case that Todd in fact was ignorant of this truth, or worse, if he were in fact deaf to that angelic music, then I would have to say, with deep regret, that he has no place in serving the Divine Liturgy. God forbid that that be the case.

“Mark’s quotes are apt and reinforce my point: they outlines not just choices, but a hierarchy of choices. Choir alone is the last option: and there’s no getting around it.”

If that is your understanding of the rubrics Mark posted, that a “hierarchy” is outlined, then you must also admit that even if the last option, a choir song is a licit option, and you cannot say the same for so-called “liturgical” dance in our rite.

And it also bring us back to a previous discussion, where I don’t think anyone ever got a straight answer on your site (are you the Todd of Catholic Sensibilty? ) — if the wording of the GIRM “outlines” a hierarchy of choices” in this instance, you must admit that it also does so for the music at Communion — and you must admit that the choir singing alone ranks FIRST among the options. There’s no getting around it.

“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.”

Either the order of various options outlined in the instruction is signficant and indicates a hierarchy, or it isn’t and it doesn’t; you can’t have it both ways.

“Don’t kid youselves church music cannot embody ego on the part of its performers.”

I do not.

Hi B…

Actually, I believe that while the Communion Antiphon is the top choice for singing, I do not believe that this is something exclusively for the choir. As Aris has pointed out in another forum, I believe it is possible to translate the Antiphon into the vernacular, and to present it to the congregation so that they, too, may be able to join in, in formats such as a simple chant, Taize, or a simple praise and worship format. There is no suggestion that the Antiphon, in the texts, must be sung by the choir only, so Todd is not having it both ways, as you assume.

>Actually, I believe that while the Communion
>Antiphon is the top choice for singing, I do not
>believe that this is something exclusively for the
>choir.

There are other legitimate options (those you mention, for instance,) but having it usng by the choirALONE is the first listed configuration, and thus, by Todd’s reckoning the one that is to be preferred.
If you read the General Instruction you will see that this is so.

It seems from this thread and other things he has written that Todd is trying to contend that when his own preferences are listed first in the General Instruction they somehow indicate a preferential option for the first listed, that that option is the ideal to be striven (’zat a word?) after; but that in cases where he or his parish prefer an option somewhere lower on the list, suddenly the order is not significant.
So it does seem that he is trying to have it both ways.

I apologize for my use of the word “baiting.”
Perhaps “teasing” would be more apt, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it.
It can be fun to get a rise out of people.

Peace, all.

Mark and B are correct in stating where the priorities lie for the Communion Song. Aside from GIRM, one also has the actual Order of Mass, which most often lists the primary choice. Being at home without a sacramentary today, I do not know what the Ordo Missae actually says about the Communion Song. Probably something neutral like “the Communion antiphon is sung” or such.

Having been reared on thirty-five years of congregational singing at Communion (or attempts of it) I’d tend to accept the USCCB suggestion in MCW as something weighty enough to consider.

But, for the record, the priorities list as they are. If I had my option of only one, congregational singing at the entrance is usually more important than at Communion.

GIRM is found at USCCB website: [link]

I would also encourage examining “A Musical Journey through GIRM” found here. - AAE

Thanks for the link. I didn’t have it in front of me.

I am of the stern opinion that #s 1 thru 4 are hierarchical, but the “choir alone” list is not. Why not? Because to do so would contradict #86:
86. 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.

Since all who receive Communion are, by definition, communicants, they cannot express their union in spirit if they are not singing. (And I don’t mean singing for the sake of singing, but singing as in entering the unity of the entire church). And if they meant merely interior singing, then it is contradictory because they wouldn’t have said “unity of voices.” Which is why, I am convinced, otherwise–not that choir alone isn’t allowed, just isn’t prefered.

Perhaps the option gives people in the assembly the freedom to participate in song, as opposed to explicitly coercing them to sing, or prohibiting them from singing. Different pewsitters have different sensibilities.

The music selection will further determine whether sung participation on the part of the assembly is feasible or not.

In any case, based on the GIRM and the first option for music selection according to it, antiphonal/responsorial psalmody is decisively preferred.

We have gone off topic. Please continue the communion antiphon discussion on this thread, and keep future comments relevant to the actual post. Thanks.

Not to be rude DDD, but is this because they simply “can’t get it”, or simply “don’t want to get it?”
The “General Instruction of the Roman Missal” is available at the USCCB site (www.usccb.org). You may want to check out “Sacrosanctam Concilium”, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy. This may help shed some light for you.

Peace
BMP

“Not to be rude DDD, but is this because they simply “can’t get it”, or simply “don’t want to get it?”"

It might be something of both, depending on music leadership in the particular parish. The most common objection I encounter to plainsong is that it has never been presented or performed well. Tempo is certainly an issue, and even good musicians I know have taken the basics–The Lord’s Prayer, Veni Veni Emmanuel, Adoro Te Devote far, far too slow. Poor selection of tempo will kill any song, and in the minds of millions of Catholics, has probably sunk the genre of plainsong from the outset. This is clearly an instance in which matters are not “equal,” as SC puts it. To most Catholics, plainsong is a new genre, and it takes well in places where it is taught well and led well.

And on weighing in on DDD’s side, it is quite true that the particulars of musical genre are just means to an end: namely the worship of God. Plainsong, because of negative associations, can be as much a barrier to good worship to some as liturgical dance is for others. If the pastry chef works the dough too much and the fine stuff has become tough and flat, then sadly, a twinkie might actually be an improvement. That fact must be recognized as square one in many parishes. That, and we’re not starting with a clean plate, as it were, when it comes to musical choices.