Roma locuta est offers “An Open Letter to Music Liturgists…”
There is nothing more tragic than the complete elimination of the texts proper to the Mass. Certainly, we would be horrified if the second reading were to be eliminated and replaced with a generic faith reflection unrelated to the reading it seeks to supplant. Why, then, have we allowed the antiphons that accompany the Entrance, Offertory, and Communion processions to completely disappear from liturgical use? The GIRM, in listing the four options for the Entrance, speaks first of “the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting.” The next two options are also psalms and antiphons. It is not until the very last option that the GIRM mentions, “a suitable liturgical song.” The norms for the other proper chants reference the same principle.
Why have we made the last option the norm for our liturgical celebrations? Moreover, the songs chosen almost universally bear no resemblance of the chant texts in the Gradual. Msgr. Andrew Wadsworth, Executive Director of the ICEL Secretariat, observes that these Propers represent the Church’s own thoughts about the readings, that they serve as a sort of lectio divina pointing us towards the mysteries and riches of the day’s liturgy. The problem with choosing hymns instead of receiving the Propers is the temptation to impose our own interpretation of the sacred texts that will be read during the Liturgy of the Word. According to Msgr. Wadsworth, “It is seriously deficient to consider that planning music for the liturgy ever begins with a blank sheet: there are texts given for every Mass in the Missal and these texts are intended for singing.”
Jeffrey has made a better case for propers.
Monopoly? Sheesh. There are three major publishers plus scores of others. And it's not like none of the Big Three hasn't made some offering on the propers front. Or that contemporary music hasn't done a better job modeling the settings of the psalms if not the structure of the propers.
Or that contemporary music hasn't done a better job modeling the settings of the psalms
Todd,
At the risk of feeding … would you care to define your terms?
there is
PSALLITE
from Liturgical press
check it out!
br john hanson osb
I am trying to balance responses between the two sites. I wrote a lengthy one to Todd at
http://causafinitaest.blogspot.com/2010/08/open-letter-to-music-liturgists-in.html
which addresses his concern here and those he left over there.
Ian, I'm happy to respond to your question. However … strongly implied in your comment is that I'm a troll. If you've changed the definition to mean "a person who disagrees with me and posts on my blog," then not only are you accurate, but you've pretty much pegged most of bloggerdom.
That said, it was contemporary composers in the early 70's, notably Lucien Deiss and the St Louis Jesuits, who wrote music with refrains labelled as "antiphons" and verses sung by soloists or a small schola. This was much closer to the structure and content of the propers than preconciliar hymnody from the four-hymn sandwich.
Point being that it's important to look more closely at those you and others consider liturgical adversaries. Many different people have different pieces of ars celebrandi, and likely few if any are competent in all of those aspects. It's a 1 Corinthians 12 kind of thing.
Getting back to the theme of Jake's post, I would agree we have an opportunity. We have an opportunity to raise the bar a bit. It would seem to me that the new translation focuses on the sung Mass ordinary, not the propers (which remain unreformed).
The priest-people dialogues. New Mass settings, rather than new wine in old wineskins. That's a big effort. And an important one. For many of us, the debate on propers is a waste of energy in the current climate.
Todd,
There is no doubt that there are other issues involved here, but that doesn't minimize the importance of the Propers. Those of us defending their use think that they are very important to the restoration of liturgical dignity. I think most people can see that the use of hymns and the use of Propers set a very different tone (excuse the cheap pun) for the Mass. Given that there are three places in the Mass that we are talking about, this different tone seems like a very big deal. And given that the difference is so noticeable it bears disucssing which one is more appropriate to the tone that should be set for the Mass, that which is most consonant with the true spririt of the liturgy. While the other issues that revolve around the new translation are important, I feel that this is a prime opportunity to have this discussion. … My two cents.
Jake, fair point. I admit I see the issue more broadly. I tend to favor Scripture-based songs over composed lyrics. I use the texts of the propers at times because they harmonize with the rest of the texts of the Mass. This is more true during Lent, Advent, and Easter. Less during ordinary time.
My own sense is that the tone of the Mass is more determined by the style of music and the leadership of the priest and musicians than a choice between propers and songs.
I get nervous when people claim their own way hews more closely to the "true spirit of the liturgy." The implication is that some Catholics are holier, more faithful, etc.. The truth is that the best argument for the propers is how close they are to Scripture, not necessarily that they have a basis in tradition.
The best case for propers in the OF is that it is in keeping with the hermeneutic of continuity that His Holiness writes of. Ironic that they have pride of place but are seldom, if ever, used.
I wrote a rather lengthy article years ago that argued that the so-called "other suitable song" (alius cantus aptus) would have to be a setting of the proper text as well. It makes no sense to give as options 1-3 three well-defined settings of the Proper texts, and then give another option that is simply "another song". Rather, it makes much more sense that it is another setting (although undefined) of the Proper text (and thereby suitable or aptus). My question has always been "what would make another song suitable"? The only answer is that it is a setting of the same text.