Bishop Slattery of Tulsas has offered a wonderful case for bringing back the sung introit. What he calls for here is PRECISELY what the Chant Cafe has been pushing with the Simple English Propers Project. We are making progress in this campaign but we need your help. Please make a donation today.
But today I would like to suggest one simple change by which we might begin to recover the sense that the liturgy is something we receive, rather than something we create. I do not propose this as the most important or essential change towards this end, but merely as one change, one step, one movement away from the chaos of created liturgies towards the proper vision of the Council.
What I would like to propose is that we recover the sung introit at Mass.
I know that for two generations now, Catholics have been expected to sing an opening hymn at Mass and in many parishes the faithful are regularly browbeaten to “stand up and greet this morning’s celebrant with hymn #so-and-so” which, depending upon the parish, might be taken from the red hymnbook, or the blue hymnbook, or the nicely disposable paperback missalette. So deeply has this ‘opening hymn mentality’ shaped our consciousness that most Catholics would be astounded to hear me say that hymns have no real place in Mass.
Hymns belong in the Liturgy of the Hours and in the common devotions of the faithful, but the idea that the parish liturgy committee should sit down sometime early in the month and look through a hymn book, trying to find pretty hymns which haven’t been overdone in the past three or four months, which explore the themes of the Sunday Masses and which brings the people together as a singing community is an idea completely alien to the spirit of the Catholic liturgy.
It is alien first of all because the singing of hymns as Sunday worship was a Protestant innovation, better suited to their non-Sacramental worship than to the Mass, and alien secondly because an opening hymn introduces – at the very inception of the sacred action – that element of creative busy-ness, which is, as we have seen, antithetical to the nature of salvation as a gift we receive from God.
What belongs at the beginning of Mass is the sung introit, that is a sung antiphon and psalm. In the Catholic liturgical tradition, these are unique compositions in which a scriptural cento is set to a singular piece of music. The melody explores and interprets the text of the cento, while the composition as a whole illuminates the meaning to be discovered later in the readings of the day.
The Sung Introit
These sung introits have been an integral part of the Latin Rite, and remain so in the Extraordinary Form, where the schola or choir chants the more difficult antiphon, and the congregation sings the psalm. This gives the faithful both the chance to listen and respond, practicing, in effect, the basic elements of the Mass, listening and responding, listening, for example to the Word of God as it comes to us in the readings, and then responding to the Father’s initiative by offering to Him the obedience of Jesus.Unfortunately these antiphons have never been set to music in the Novus Ordo. For forty years they have sat, lonely of notation, at the top of each page in the Sacramentary unable to be sung, until even the memory of the sung introit has passed away.
Yet there are changes afoot and reason to hope. The introduction of the new translation of the Roman Missal, now definitely set for the First Sunday of Advent of next year, gives me reason to anticipate a new beginning here. Faithful to the spirit of the Latin text and with an accurate translation into a consciously sacred style of English, the new Missal points to a rediscovered seriousness in the way America celebrates her liturgy and perhaps a greater appreciation as well of the elements of liturgy which have been discarded these past forty years.
Perhaps with this new seriousness, and given the need to compose new chant melodies to accompany the new translations, this may well be the time when liturgists will begin discussing the meaning of a received liturgy; when composers might make their first attempts to set these antiphons to a simple English Plain Song, and when publishers might begin to produce worthy and dignified liturgical books.
There are parishes here and there that still sing the Latin chant, in Latin (no less!). We do this at my parish in NYC, for instance (I have also set most of the Sunday Introits for mixed voices, maintaining the chant in unadulterated form). We eliminated the opening hymn at the choir Mass (though it is still used in sung Masses where there is no choir).
We've also eliminated the opening hymn (within the last year or so) at Our Saviour here in NYC and replaced it with the (latin and Gregorian) introit.
This bit's not quite clear to me though:
It is alien first of all because the singing of hymns as Sunday worship was a Protestant innovation, better suited to their non-Sacramental worship than to the Mass…
Certainly there is a kind of hymn-singing that is part and parcel of certain kinds of non-sacramental Protestant worship, but a) Hymns have long been part of Catholic Sunday worship when we don't restrict that to the Mass and b) Lutherans, who I think of as the introducers of hymn singing at Sunday worship (am I wrong?) also believe in a sacramental Sunday Eucharist.
I think what the good bishop is saying is that the use (modern strophic) hymns at mass is something borrowed from Protestant worship, and that hymns have a different function in "non-Sacramental worship" than in the Catholic liturgy.
In a non-Sacramental Protestant liturgy – i.e. one focused on the Word and preaching – generally speaking, hymns are part and parcel of the service: at the time they are sung, they *are* the service. (Lutherans don't think of themselves as "Protestants" either so perhaps the bishop wasn't referring to them.)
Contrast this with their use in a Catholic mass: with few exceptions, they are meant to accompany other actions (procession, communion, etc.). True, in the Liturgy of the Hours, they are part of the rite, but by "Sunday worship," I believe Bishop Slattery means the Eucharistic liturgy. (In my experience Catholics don't normally refer to Benediction or Vespers as "worship.")
I think the bishop is basically correct. Even if you dispute his terminology, the larger point is that strophic hymns – which are not integral to the liturgy – have de facto replaced the propers of the mass – which are.
Working now in an Episcopal parish, with a Rite 2 liturgy that looks astonishingly like a contemporary Novus Ordo mass as practiced in an average parish, I can see with greater clarity the Protestant function of Hymnody as liturgical action.
As Bill Mahrt pointed out in his talk at the Houston chant workshop, the liturgical action at the opening of Mass is not the singing, it is the processing, the praying, the incensing, and so forth. The music accompanies and amplifies the action, but is not the action itself.
The Protestant understanding of this is quite different- the singing of the hymn is, in fact, the liturgical action (as is the singing of an "anthem" prior to the Eucharistic prayer).
Intellectual and religious freedom gives us all the right to argue and debate about which view is more appropriate, but I don't think it's reasonable to deny that one is an authentically Roman Catholic viewpoint and the other is an authentically Protestant (Lutherans included) one.
"the chaos of created liturgies." Now that's right on the money!. Kudos to the Bishop
We need Bishops of this caliber on the West Coast. The See of San Francisco will be available soon…….
I love this Bishop. The only one I ever heard that seems to understand the place of hymns is not at Mass. And he has a well-reasoned suggestion for a return to the proper opening for the Mass of the Introit. It is just one of many parts of the Mass that were amputated in the reforms.
Here, here!! I just talked this kind of change over with my choir last evening. They are open, not too enthusiastic yet, but open.
BTW, my parish is predominantly Spanish speaking with many immigrant families. There are several times a year that I am requested to plan and provide the music for a bi-lingual Mass. Does anyone know of resources to assist a Spanish translation of the propers as Adam Bartlett is providing in English? Our (gag) "missalettes" do not correspond with our Lectionary or our Sacramentary. This would be a great time to address this with my parish. I will do the music setting, but it is the translation into Spanish that is most problematic. I would be most appreciative for any information.
Thanks.
"Does anyone know of resources to assist a Spanish translation of the propers as Adam Bartlett is providing in English?"
Musings–My parish is also largely Hispanic, about 50% so. I've been working with our Spanish music coordinator on this very idea. If we could find good Spanish translations of the Graduale Romanum antiphons I could consider doing a Spanish version of the Simple Propers (although this would undoubtedly be a LOT of work!). I've considered using the St. Meinrad tones with the antiphons that are in the Hispanic Missal. I sense that this would be more practical for the state of Spanish music in Catholic liturgy.
Any other ideas?
"The Protestant understanding of this is quite different- the singing of the hymn is, in fact, the liturgical action.."
When I served as Organist/ Choir Director at a Methodist Church for several years (early in my career!), the difference was immediately obvious… the pastor selects the Hymns, the Choir Director selects the "Anthem" to be sung by the Choir. When the time comes to sing the Hymns, the Pastor stands at the Pulpit, announces the number of the hymn and leads the singing. At that point, it IS the action, it is the prayer, it is the service itself. In catholic liturgy, hymns and songs are used as musical cover for other things happening, ridiculous sincce there actually IS something that should be happening then… THE ANTIPHON!
Two quick points:
– First, a few composers have indeed set the introit texts. I was aware of some GIA-published offerings in the early 90's. I reviewed a set of Lenten antiphons for Entrance and Communion for a publication almost two decades ago.
Also, many contemporary composers have, on occasion, used these texts as inspiration. The best one can say is that organized collections have been rare. But the insinuation that composers are disconnected from the texts of the liturgy is simply untrue.
As for hymnody, there is a certain tradition of using hymns in Catholic worship, even the Eucharist that predates Protestant-developed hymnody.
All that said, I think the texts are primary. It's not so important to sing chant as to sing the psalms and other texts of Scripture that reinforce the celebration of Sunday, feast, or liturgical season. Second, the capabilities and desires of the assembly should be taken into account.
"In catholic liturgy, hymns and songs are used as musical cover for other things happening, ridiculous since there actually IS something that should be happening then… THE ANTIPHON!"
The suggestion of "musical cover" is inappropriate. None of us have any way of knowing the intent of people who do not know or choose not to sing the chanted antiphons. By the way, the traditional ideal would be antiphon-plus-Psalm. Let's not forget the inspired word of God here.
So Todd, you agree the Introit should be sung
It's a better option than recitation, that's for sure. If you're new to this blog, I'll restate my position:
The entrance chant should be sung by the liturgical assembly, either in part or in whole. I have no problem with the option of using alternate settings of the antiphons as given.
Much contemporary Catholic music utilizes the structure (and occasionally the texts) of the propers in a more acceptable way than hymnody.
That said, neither the Church nor I have any problem with metrical hymnody, especially if it is based on Scripture and takes a careful approach to the texts given and adapts in a mindful way.
Thank you Bishop Slattery for the clarification about the place of the hymn in Catholic liturgy. Although it has been discussed in the forum, and many faithful musicians who wants to follow what the Church 'desires' more than what she 'allows'and use those hymns as stepping stone will agree with what he says, it's so good to hear from someone with authority. What he says is very clear.
Fr Samuel Weber, OSB, Director of the Institute of Sacred Music (Archdiocese of St Louis), has a huge collection of excellent English Proper chants, as well as a few in Spanish. They are available in .pdf format at http://archstl.org/worship/page/institute-sacred-music. Fr Samuel has responded to many commissions over the years, to provide Proper chants for specific parishes or religious communities, so perhaps he might be interested in providing more chants in Spanish. His collection includes 95% of all the Sunday Masses for the entire liturgical year. In addition, his collection includes a significant number of the Proper chants for feasts of both the Temporale and the Sanctorale. Fr Samuel has also set texts from the new Roman Missal to English. All of this is the fruit of many years of dedicated work, beginning in the dark times before the current liturgical renascence.
When we don't use the propers, I believe that we're imposing ourselves upon the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass and there in lies the first problem with hymnody at Mass, it's not about us. When Hymnody has been used at Mass at least in the Western Tradition to my knowledge it's never been at the neglect to the propers but in addition to. (The sequences come to mind). The hymnody that we use today is definitely of protestant origin.
I definitely think that we should sing the propers at Mass, they are fitting for the Roman Rite. We can even sing them in the vernacular if need be.