This shouldn’t be news but we all know the politics behind all these debates. This is why I’m nearly dumbfounded (again I shouldn’t be) by this news from Fr. Z. It is a quotation from the latest CDW letter from the USCCB
In the selection of songs for the liturgy, “[p]reference should be given to songs which are of clear biblical inspiration and which express, through the harmony of music and words, the beauty of God’s word” (no. 70). These words should give new impetus to composers, and also inspire all to make greater use of Gregorian chant.
Well, is it same as this?
"… Gregorian Chant, which is, consequently the Chant proper to the Roman Church, the only chant she has inherited from the ancient fathers, which she has jealously guarded for centuries in her liturgical codices, which she directly proposes to the faithful as her own, which she prescribes exclusively for some parts of the liturgy, and which the most recent studies have so happily restored to their integrity and purity.
On these grounds Gregorian Chant has always been regarded as the suprememodel for sacred music, so that it is fully legitimate to lay down thefollowing rule: the more closely a composition for church approaches in its movement, inspiration and savor the Gregorian form, the more sacred and liturgical it becomes; and the more out of harmony it is with that supreme model, the less worthy it is of the temple." (Tra le Sollecitudini)
I am glad to see this (of course), but am again dismayed at the lack of that final step…that actual commitment to what is being said that has been absent from every statement about chant made since Vat.II.
Why not "If a Processional Hymn is to be sung by the assembly, it must be preceded by the chanting of the Introit and Psalm verse. If there is not sufficient time for both, the Processional hymn is to be omitted and the Introit and Psalm verse are to be chanted using either the setting in the Graduale or a vernacular setting using an approved translation. If this is not possible, a simplified version of the Introit may be chanted, or in cases of dire need, it may be sung using a simple tone without the Psalm verse."
Is that really so difficult? 🙂
I agree. Unless we actually require it (in stricter words than it is "required" now), such as Chironomo said, it will not become widespread anytime in the next 200 years. I think Chironomo has an excellent idea. Give chant the pride of place specifically by law (even more than it already is).
She definitely told us what should be in the first place, but it seems that the Church wants us to obey her because we love her, not because it is imposed on us. (although many people don't seem to pay attention to her gentle voice and try to find loopholes, often times in a high intellectual manner, to do what they want to do.)
Mia
Suggestion:
Since "contemporary/folk masses" usually get a special mass carved out every Sunday (even without the "high endorsements" given by Popes and Conferences to Gregorian Chant) I believe that those who want more Catholic musical and liturgical tradition restored are in a most justified position to start asking for a pastoral accomodation for a Gregorian Chant Mass, every Sunday and Feast Day.