"Know your musical directives!" Vol. I, No. 1 - Answer Key
Here are the answers to the quiz posted a few days ago, from highest to lowest preference, according to a strict interpretation of GIRM 2002.
Please note that other than styles expressly cited by the Church regarding Latin-rite worship (Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony), no mention was made of musical style in these rankings—only the texts, text sources and translations. Furthermore, musical style played no role in ranking the selections.
Christmas Day
I. Entrance Song:
First:
C) “Puer natus est nobis”, Gregorian chant from Roman GradualSecond:
E) “Dominus dixit ad me”, chant from Simple GradualThird (with qualifications):
A) “For unto us a child is born”, G.F. HandelFourth, Fifth:
B) “A child is born”, Gregory Norbet
D) “O come, all ye faithful/Adeste fideles”, traditional carol
The Entrance Song for Christmas Mass during the Day, according to the Roman Missal, is Isaiah 9:6 with one or more verses from Psalm 97(98) and the minor doxology (Gloria Patri). Though the antiphon from the Roman Gradual is not an exact quote from Scripture, textually and stylistically it maintains first preference due to the Church’s liturgical legislation.
Second preference goes to the antiphon from the Simple Gradual, whose Christmas introit may be used at all four Christmas Masses (vigil, midnight, dawn, and daytime). Incidentally, the text of this setting (Psalm 2:7, with verses from Psalm 2 and the minor doxology) is exactly the text of the Introit antiphon and psalm from the Christmas Midnight Mass.
Now we deal with gray area (or “emanations and penumbras” in SCOTUS-speak). A strict interpretation of the GIRM would render none of the remainder of the selections as appropriate due to lack of integrity with the liturgical text or official ecclesial approval. But for the sake of this and all future exercises, let us assume that the local ordinary has given express permission to use the following selections.
The Handel is in third place. While it lacks the psalm verses and minor doxology of the introit, it is still a direct quotation of Isaiah 9:6, albeit in a vernacular translation not ratified for Catholic public worship (KJV English).
Bringing up the rear are “Adeste Fideles” and “A Child is Born”—while alluding to Scripture, they are neither Scripture nor “canonized” (listed) by the official liturgical books. (The latter does allude to Isaiah 9:6, but the verses do not correspond to Psalm 97(98).) Ranking will therefore be determined by factors other than the text or liturgical legislation. This is where most of the relativistic “traditional/contemporary” worship wars occur—notice that these skirmishes miss the mark as the texts, strictly speaking, are aliturgical.
Refer to GIRM 47-48 for official Church legislation on the Entrance Song for dioceses in the United States of America.
II. Offertory/Presentation of the Gifts
First:
E) “Tui sunt caeli”, William ByrdSecond:
D) “Laetentur caeli”, chant from Simple GradualThird, Fourth, Fifth:
A) “The Virgin Mary had a baby boy”, West Indian carol
B) “O magnum mysterium”, Tomas Luis de Victoria
C) “It came upon the midnight clear”, Edmund Sears/Richard Willis
The Roman Gradual lists Psalm 88(89):12, 15a as the Offertory antiphon. Verses may be found in the Offertoriale Triplex. (Here, in PDF format, is a preview of what the Offertory verses look like on paper.)
The Byrd setting takes first place as the text is exactly the Offertory antiphon for Christmas Day. Why is this? As the Roman Gradual was not listed as an option, we must again look to GIRM to determine the proper criteria. Here, GIRM 74 points us back to GIRM 48—the hierarchy for the Offertory is the same for the Entrance. Here it says for first preference:
…The antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting…
The Byrd makes first preference; while it is another musical setting, it is the antiphon from the Roman Gradual. Moreover, it is a setting expressly cited by the Church as suitable for worship (cf. Sacrosanctum Concilium 116—”especially polyphony”).
Second place goes to the chant from the Simple Gradual, which is a simpler setting of the antiphon and psalm found in the Roman Gradual for the Christmas Midnight Mass.
The Victoria, West Indian carol and Sears/Willis carol bring up the rear, strictly speaking. All three are poetic glosses of Scripture, other than Scripture itself. An argument may be made for ranking the Victoria setting higher, as it is a liturgical text. However, it is the text of the fourth Responsory of Matins for Christmas, not the Offertory for Christmas.
III. Communion Song
First:
A) “Viderunt omnes fines terrae”, Gregorian chant from Roman GradualSecond:
E) “Viderunt omnes termini terrae”, chant from Simple GradualThird (with qualifications):
C) “All the ends of the earth”, David Haas/Marty HaugenFourth, Fifth:
B) “Silent night”, Franz X. Gruber
D) “Lo, how a rose e’er blooming”, German carol
The Roman Missal cites Psalm 97(98):3cd as the Communion antiphon, while the Roman Gradual cites Psalm 97(98):1ab, 1cd, 2, 3ab, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8-9a, 9bc plus the minor doxology as verses to be sung between repetitions of the Communion antiphon. The Roman Gradual’s setting obviously is the most preferred version.
Second place once again goes to the setting in the Simple Gradual; this time, the Simple Gradual’s antiphon corresponds to the Roman Gradual’s antiphon for Christmas Day (and corresponds more closely to the Latin Vulgate translation of the psalm).
Some readers would be surprised, even shocked, that the Haugen/Haas would take third in this list. It is a setting of Psalm 97(98):3, with verses from Psalm 97(98):1-6. Based strictly on the scriptural citation provided by GIA, this selection would fall under:
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 (GIRM 88)
although with its gender-neutral modifications to an already loose translation (which I cannot find in a Bible translation approved for worship), this third ranking (both according to this quiz and to GIRM) is a tenuous one at best. An argument similar to those made against ICEL translations of the liturgy may be made.
But assuming that ranking holds, bringing up the rear would be the devotional poetry found in the carols “Silent Night” and “Lo, How a Rose…”
Consult GIRM 86-88 for the relevant liturgical legislation for dioceses in the United States of America.
Lest this be misconstrued merely as an exercise in liturgical legalism, let us look at the proper songs for Christmas: Mass during the Day in translation (Douay OT), and see exactly how much rich fare pastors, homilists, musicians, liturgists and composers omit from the Mass, because of whatever reason:
Introit:
cf. Isaiah 9:6
For a CHILD IS BORN to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, the Angelic Counsellor.
Verses: Psalm 97(98) [ Douay | NAB ]
Glory to the Father…
Offertory:
Psalm 88(89): 12, 15a
Thine are the heavens, and thine is the earth: the world and the fulness thereof thou hast founded. Justice and judgment are the preparation of thy throne.
V/. Great and terrible above all them that are about him. Thou rulest the power of the sea: and appeasest the motion of the waves thereof. (Psalm 88(89): 8b, 10)
Justice and judgement….
V/. Mercy and truth shall go before thy face: and in thy good pleasure shall our horn be exalted. (Psalm 88(89): 15b, 18b)
Justice and judgement….
V/. Thou hast humbled the proud one, as one that is slain: with the arm of thy strength thou hast scattered thy enemies. Let thy hand be strengthened, and thy right hand exalted. (Psalm 88(89): 11, 14b)
Justice and judgement….
Communion:
Psalm 97(98): 3cd
All the ends of the earth have seen the salvation of our God.
Verses: Psalm 97(98) [ Douay | NAB ]
Glory to the Father…
Hopefully this exercise has proved thought-provoking—I look forward to a fruitful, non-polemical discussion in the comment thread. If desired, these quizzes and discussions could occur more regularly on this site—let me know (either in your comments or via e-mail) if this is a good idea.
Leave a Reply
10 Comments
“notice that these skirmishes miss the mark as the texts, strictly speaking, are aliturgical”
Something that everyone ought to consider. The texts for the Mass of the day ought to be used more widely. My own parish has only just begun to incoporate the Introit into daily Mass. We still rarely hear it on Sundays. But this is the text which belongs to the faithful.
What I find somewhat confusing is that although the directives clearly give precedence to the proper liturgical texts, the options contra such preference seem to absolve choir directors and liturgical committees from actually using them. Why bother with preferences if we make possible the ignoring of the liturgical texts that has been the case for my entire life (I’m 31)?
I would love to see more of these quizes. I’ve read the directives before so I knew generally what the precedence should be or so I thought. The application of prioritizing these selections has provided me with a cleare understanding of the directives. I vote for more quizes. (Having just finished finals for this semester, I really can’t believe I’ve said that!).
Laudetur Iesus Christus.
First, the comments I typed in a side window while I worked on my answers:
I. Entrance Song
First two are “for unto us” and “puer natus est nobis”, as the dictated introit text for Christmas during the day. I put the Handel first because it’s a great setting and the church promotes polyphony as well as chant, and yes Latin gets pride of place, but we like singing in the vernacular too. Next “dominus dixit”, as the introit text for midnight mass. Then “o come” for being a good song of gathering and praise, traditional, and with some liturgical relevance (”God of gods” etc from Nicene Creed). Finally “a child is born” for some thematic relevance.
II. Offertory/Presentation of the Gifts
Though “tui sunt” et al are in the *old* gradual, I was under the impression that the new ones didn’t have a prescribed offertory antiphon. So, lacking in textual preferences, and only knowing two of the pieces (”O magnum” and “It came upon”), I just abstained.
III. Communion Song
The two “viderunt omnes” were first (simple chant first because it’s easier to sing while processing to Communion—just because the congregation is capable of singing it doesn’t take away relative ease of singing with/without music in front of you); my only objection to “all the ends” was that it doesn’t set the right tone for communion (being better for e.g. a closing hymn), though it does appear to set the right words. Then “Lo, how a rose” and “silent night”, though I don’t know a good reason to prefer one over the other. I picked “Lo” because I like it better.
And a response as the answers were coming in: a lot of people here are taking the Latin in preference to anything else and dissing the English settings of the actual prescribed texts. The church says that Latin gets “pride of place”, not that it trumps all liturgical considerations. If you start being a Latin snob, picking songs just because they’re in Latin, you’re just as bad as all the music directors out there who pick songs just because they sound nice!
And finally, a response in light of Aristotle’s post. I was just mistaken regarding the offertory antiphon, misled due to the fact that our crappy missalette makes not even a reference to one despite listing at least the text of introit and communion antiphons, admittedly without verses. I’m still not sure I understand the objection to the Handelso Protestants did the translation, it doesn’t mean it’s a bad one (and flowery language is much more ok in song than in prose, I think, not that Handel has much flowery language or indeed any significant difference from the official Catholic translation).
Other than that, I was pretty much on track, although I really need to sit down and figure out the exact relationship between the Roman Gradual and the Simple Gradual one of these days….
Thanks for this practical application of something that should become common-knowledge for music directors! This is a great idea, Aristotle….it even got me to finally post a comment!
I would just like to respond to the previous comment about “preference” of Latin texts. Coming from a Novus Ordo background (Latin and English) and having a deep appreciation for the Tridentine Mass (where I went to Mass today!) I can understand a desire for the incorporation of English into the liturgy.
Unfortunately, however, there is not really a good translation of the Roman Gradual (text AND music) into English, although the Cantus project with Fr. Perrone in MI is working on a translation of the Graduale Simplex. The preference for the antiphons from the Graduale Romanum is simply out of respect to the GIRM and Musicam Sacram (see paragraph 32 where other songs are clearly seen as a SUBSTITUTE for the Graduale antiphons) directives to use the propers of the day. These are the official texts for the Mass of the day and therefore must be preferred to unofficial translations (such as NIV, NKJV, etc) and especially to texts that are paraphrased or just thematically related.
It seems to me that if an official version of the Graduale Romanum were produced in English and that was artistically as sound as the Graduale Romanum, this would be ranked in category #1. At the same time, however, especially in international situations, the Latin provides a common language for Catholics and a link to the past that is not as readily available in an English translation. This preference is not out of any elitist tendencies, but simply an expression of the desire to use the official texts of the Church as the most artistically and doctrinally sound option in all cases.
Maybe I’m a music or Italian snob, but I find it preferable to sing in Latin. The vowels are purer, rendering even an unskilled singer’s voice lovelier than English vowels can make it, and the consonants are crisper. Sung Latin is by far simpler to understand than sung English (cf. Robert Shaw’s exhaustive instruction on the proper sung pronuncation of English for object examples)!
I’m not opposed to English per se, but as a proficient reader of Latin, I find most English translations, particularly of liturgical texts, rather clunky and inelegant.
But that is a matter of personal taste on my part.
The fact that Latin is easier to sing and sounds better than English is undisputed. There is a possibility, however, of translating the texts well and artfully, as I have personally seen evidenced by the work of the Cantus project.
My point simply is this: to say that chant should never or very infrequently be sung in english (which is not exactly what the last comment said) is to deny the average member of the congregation (without the ability to read Latin) the ability to be mentally totally connected to the text of the music. Even when translations are provided, the experience of reading them is still secondary to experiencing the music. If, however, the text is faithfully translated and set to the music well (especially in the context of the Graduale simplex that is less melismatic), there would be a sufficient argument for the frequent (though not exclusive) use of such settings. After all, isn’t that the whole point of insisting (like I have been in this thread) that the official texts be used? These are priceless gems that no Catholic should be denied and are invaluable sources for meditation, preaching and inspiration.
Do not mistake my intent, however. There is far more communicated by music than a text, which is why chant, in Latin, is able to communicate things that other art forms cannot (even through works that are well-composed.) Also, the experience of reading a translation, or even having no translation available and listening to it sung in Latin is still a highly effective and necessary experience, even for a congregation that cannont speak or even read Latin. This is particularly the case in the solemn settings of antiphons that are highly melismatic and it is more difficult, even for the proficient Latinist, to be totally aware of the text. I think there is room for a balanced approach to this issue.
Spot on, Jenny.
I’m not arguing for the abandonment of English translation, just sharing a personal bias/preference. Well-sung English can be quite lovely.
“The fact that Latin is easier to sing and sounds better than English is undisputed. ”
Sounds a little haughty, don’t you think?
I may be the minority on this board, but I have _struggled_ to learn certain chants in Latin for an upcoming service. The Alma Redemptoris Mater took me a full week to master, and even then I don’t have the proper breathing fully correct. I won’t even attempt the other Latin chant in the hymnal (which if it were so easy, I’d be able to remember… but no).
That said, I have a question: I own a Sacramentary at home, and never encountered an “Offeratory antiphon” in its pages. How do I obtain a list of Offeratory antiphons throughout the year? (I do not read Latin, and so a Latin-only Roman Gradual is of no use to me.–which is what the linked PDF files above contained).
Nick, perhaps Jenny’s comment needs to be clarified. In terms of forming the vowel and consonant sounds correctly, Latin is much easier to sing than English, and ends up sounding better. Those of us who’ve been trained for opera can attest that in these terms, English is the most difficult language to sing in–far outstripping the notoriously difficult French and German.
However, for those who are unfamiliar with Latin or unused to singing in foreign languages, being suddenly faced with a bunch of syllables which are largely meaningless to you can be daunting. Those of us who have studied Latin or have been singing in Latin for a long time often forget how difficult it is for beginners. But, the reality is that with time and practice, Latin will become easier, and after a couple of years with decent guidance I guarantee that your Latin pronunciation will be much better than your English pronunciation when you sing–unless, perhaps, you’re a former choirboy from a major English cathedral.
As for the list of Offertories in English, I’m sorry that I cannot help. I’m one of those annoying people who reads enough Latin to use the Graduale.
Incidentally, despite all the protests of the Church, the Offertory chant has been disregarded in favor of other texts on a regular basis since at least the 16th Century. So, while it’s not the best option, there is at least historical precedent for the practice. This probably started because the Offertory texts tend, of all the Propers, to be the least related to the “theme” of the rest of the Mass. Some are very appropriate to the day, and others seem totally random.
I have a lot of sympathy for the cause of bringing back Latin chant to liturgy, even though I have had mixed experiences with it. At its best, it is very beautiful, and meaningful on multiple levels, most importantly that it reminds me of the fact that the Catholic Church has been around for ages and these melodies were sung for centuries. There’s a lot of power to that “democracy of the dead”, as Chesterton would call it. Add on top of that, the meaning of the texts themselves.
But I also have to remind myself that, while Latin may be very easy to a budding opera singer, it is not easy at all for the average parishioner. Everything about it is foreign to him: the style, the instruments, the language. It creates a complete mental block as to how to respond to the material–for the uneducated and uninitiated.
As sad it is to see how a whole lot of Catholic culture and heritage has been marginalized, I think the board does the average parishioner no favors by tauting how “easy” chant is. There are easy chants, and there are familiar chants, but then everything else is brutal hard. Opera-singers, by nature, are not attracted to music that is comparatively banal, but “easy” for Joe Congregant to sing. And Joe “Off-key” Congregant, by nature, is not prone to add “Opera Singing for Beginners” to his Christmas list.
Sorry for the snarky tone. I have a lot of respect for Jane’s and Jenny’s comments, and am rooting for a deeper reverence in liturgy; we just disagree as to how an average congregant can approach chant,
I bring some oddly diverse experiences to this discussion, operatically trained (bachelors, voice performance major, a major conservatory,) made a living for a time doing musical theater and singing and playing with a rock, and most recently extensive work with children, included the developmentally disabled.
>
I would not call it haughty to state objective facts about a language and the ease with which it can be sung, based on the openness of its vowels, simplicity of consonant production (even factoring in the correct though uncommon pronunciation of the intervocalic “h,”) and regularity of pronunciation.
>
Don’t neglect the earworm phenomenon in discussion of classifying things as to ease of remembrance.
Much that is easy to remember may inherently unsuited to ritual, for it’s very banality and insistence, the traits that make it easy to remember. (Think of the iconically annoying Disney anthem, “It’s A Small World.”)
And I think it is important to stress that the most suitable material, verbal or musical, for ritual use, ANY ritual use, is not ipso facto the most easily remembered.
“Easy” tends to wear out its welcome faster than subtle and layered.
>
German’s being easier to sing in than English is an arguable point. (Many would place English somewhere between Russian and German.)
But ecclesiastical Latin is unquestionably easier than almost anything (although Italian, because of its consonants, can have a certain irresistible “momentum”.)
>
Well said, and well quoted!
>
Actually, the truly uneducated and uninitiated HAVE no “mental blocks.”
Starting from square one, no familiarity at all, and no bias either for or against, Latin presents no very great difficulty for the “average” (i.e., untrained, limited ranged and non-music reading,) singer.
And chant not only presents no great challenge, it is actually easier than most styles in virtually all ways.
American children who cannot yet read, (or who because of handicaps will perhaps never read,) can learn a multi-versed spiritual with a repeating lyrical “hook” in English, a Gregorian communion antiphon, and a single verse of a genuine folk tune in a foreign language, all with about the same effort, in about the same amount of time., with about the same degree of success.
I know this because these items have made up part of a number of programs I have taught — “classical”, i.e. serious or art music, and current pop style, (including the most common contemporary Catholic songs,) take somewhat longer; and the latter, because of rhythmic illogic are often beyond learning accurately (though I admit my own mental bias may impact on my failures in their instruction.)








![[Bench Pressus]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/bench-pressus-ad125x125.gif)
![[Colossians 3:16]](http://www.cantemusdomino.net/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/colossians-316-ad125x125.gif)




Last 5 Comments