The very mention of “my” and “lexicon” generally strikes fear and loathing among my friends and fellowes here in St. Blogs. Why, within a couple of days, one of two dearest of my singing sisters in chant implied that my posts are rife with “hyperbole,” (she’s correct, of course!) whilst the other worried that one of my posts at Musica Sacra was so “pithy” that the real me had been abducted!
Well, this post-Winter Chant Intensive article is intended to address a “boots on the ground and let’s chum the still waters” inquiry I made of Dr. Mahrt in New Orleans. (See that, I mixed metaphors already!) I asked whether there existed any historical precedence for having the Entrance Procession begin from the sacristy, as I’ve experienced at EF Masses, but in the OF.
So, here are the terms, courtesy of Dr. Mahrt’s reply: “Circumambulation” and “The Stuffed Mass.”
To “circumabulate” according to Dictionary.com simply amounts to “walk(ing) or (to) go about or around, esp. ceremoniously.” It’s origin and source dates around “1656, from L. circumambulare , from circum “around” + ambulare “to walk.
A new agey website Kora Chronicles surprisingly offers a fairly apt (in synch with Dr. Mahrt’s definition)-
“Generally, circumambulation is to walk or move around something, especially as part of a ceremony or ritual. In a religious or spiritual context, circumambulation is performed around a special object, just as a shrine or an altar. A Catholic (celebrant) may circumambulate an alter, other priest or person, gifts etc while swinging a thurible of incense (also known as censing) as part of a blessing or ceremony. The number of times and the method used to swing the thurible is significant and, in some denominations, forms part of the liturgical law.”
“The Stuffed Mass,” as defined by Mahrt, is when we bereft directors have to stealthily deploy the proper antiphons (and verses) while maintaining the practice of having congregational hymns sung AT THE SAME MASS. The good professor neither condemned nor endorsed the practice, but simply acknowledged that “on our journey to the kingdom” many of us (like me) are using the Introit as a de facto prelude, wedding an Offertorio to the so-called Hymn of the Day, and chanting the Communio during the quarter hour it takes for the EMHC’s to receive H.C. and the ciboria and chalices, followed by the Communion processional hymn, etc.
In this post I would like you folks to either raise or lower the standard (flag) of proposing the practice of circumambulation for the Entrance Procession as a legitimate way to accommodate the singing of both a hymn and a proper. Isn’t it the standard practice at our churches to have the celebrant and ministerial entourage leave the sacristy to the exterior of the church and re-assemble at the narthex for the entrance? And if that is so, doesn’t that require some sort of “cue” for the congregation to rise? And from that point, all of the strategic issues and disputes about partipatio activa (congregational singing), or antiphonal singing/chanting between the choir/schola and congregation of the Introit, or the congregation visually “taking in” the deeper meaning by actively viewing the procession, or more mundane concerns as to how many verses of a hymn are to be sung, or is it a processional hymn or “gathering song”…. Could circumambulation remediate most of those concerns?
But what is the “special object” being recognized should the celebrant’s entrance begin with the ring of the Introit bell, the procession moving through the sanctuary and into the nave via a side aisle and then without interruption (or a “meet and greet” outside of the church beforehand) proceeding up the main aisle to the sanctuary again, where reverencing, incensation, etc. would constitute an uninterrupted liturgical action? Well, couldn’t that “object” be the “priesthood of believers” called the Faithful? (Well, maybe yeah, Charles. But wouldn’t that mean that only half of the congregation would be so recognized?) Not if you approach the Offertory Procession by using the same procedure for the other half of the congregation!
“Oooohhhh, that’s a BINGO!” (exclaimed Colonel Hans Landa in the film “Inglourious Basterds.) Then we could stuff those two processions with the hymn whilst the ministers are ambulating in the nave, and seamlessly transition to the proper chant/homophonic/polyphonic setting upon their return to the sanctuary.
But really, as everyone knows, I’m not an academic. But I am given the office of fulfilling the Church’s directives for optimal worship. I do know that this, to some, might seem to blur or transgress what are considered to be clearly delineated options in the GIRM. But, as Dr. Mahrt outlined in his wonderful schematic drawing (above)* of his experiences of various types of circumambulation at Salisbury Cathedral, it might just advance among the people a higher appreciation for the function and arts associated with processions.
What’s your twopence?
*Just in case you’re interested, I’ve copyrit the graphic above as “The Munchian Scream of the Presider!” However, Dr. Mahrt believes it more resembles an example of Scott Turkington’s method of chironomy. You make the call.
I'm for it.
PS: If I had my liturgical druthers, a "Stuffed Mass" would be the norm. Of course, my stuffed mass would probably be 2+ hours long every Sunday. (That's my real heresy, folks- desire for long mass times.)
But vill za Germans agree with you, Adam?
I doubt it. They send new translations back, and you know how I feel about that sort of thing.
Well, I wouldn't offer any resistance to the Offertorio. I don't prefer congregational singing at that point anyway.
I would probably prefer a Communion antiphon and psalm toward the end of the procession. I do find that people will sing a Communion song quite readily these days. I'd be hard-pressed to give that up.
I often utilize the antiphon texts when I adapt music for the entrance rites of Advent and Lent. Since those texts also inform music programming, a "stuffed" entrance rite might turn out to be a little redundant.
Let me offer a related question on that point: For you propers-only people, how stand you on a setting of the proper psalm, set as a metered hymn or utilized as a responsorial song?
By the way, as long as the people were singing good music, I can't fathom an objection to singing the propers. My complaint on these has only and always been the dilemma of liturgical music as choir performance. Plus how to implement across the board: all Sunday, holy day, and daily Masses. Not to recreate the lamentable ghettoes of the past two generations.
Todd, for clarification: the Communio can literally be completed with multiple verses before (the) celebrant and EMHC's actually leave the sanctuary. It begins at his reception, obviously. After its completion a congregation hymn/song is then sung. As "options" go, I think that order is almost pristine.
As this is my post, I don't think your related question is germaine to my inquiry about "stuffed Masses." But I will say, for me, I'm okay with a metric or responsorial setting, as long as the text isn't overwhelmingly paraphrased. But, my post is clearly about a "both/and" not variations on one theme.
Over at CS, I'd love to see you flesh out the what you dub a "recreat(ion of) the lamentable ghettoes of the past two generations."
Peace/out.
A "stuffed procession" with the introit bell rung first, then the clergy processing to the font, incensing it and blessing the water and salt for Asperges. This followed by the hymn as everyone goes up to the sanctuary for the sprinkling and incensing the altar. A piece of cake!
I think congregational settings of Proper texts (Tietze's Introit Hymns, for example) are an excellent idea in parishes where congregational singing is the norm.
My big thing with propers vs. hymnal numbers is the text issue, not the style. I think singing the Propers to a Calypso beat is better than singing vaguely-heretical texts to dignified organ music.
One thing I think doesn't get mentioned enough is that different congregations sing differently. Many, many congregations barely sing at all, and so replacing poorly-sung congregational hymns with well-done "choir performance" would seriously improve Active Participation, because people would have something to do they felt comfortable doing: listening, praying, watching. In other parishes, where people sing loud and well, taking those congregational songs away from them would be a serious problem. For those parishes, the "Stuffed Mass" approach and/or congregational propers seems to be the best option.
That is part of the problem, isn't it? There is no universal answer for congregational singing. Far too many congregations don't even make an effort, even with pastoral prodding (see South Florida for a prime example). There are others that sing well. The standard response by many has been that those non-singing congregations just need to get with it. I propose, however, that those congregations are the norm, not the exception. Maybe for my sabbatical, I'll do a nation-wide sampling and write up my results. But even if it's a 50-50 split, then something is very wrong. My first reaction would be to leave the folks alone and have them sing only the responses and a few hymns (and carols) that they know well. Let the choir do the heavy lifting. I'm not at all convinced that the congregation needs to sing so much, but I know the documents of the Church show a different desire.
Michael,
The rubrics show something different. If by "active participation" we mean everyone must sing as much as possible, that's a load of lies.
Perhaps Benedict's recent comments in regards to the "mutual enrichment" of OF and EF can come into play here. In EF we have a very clear priest, schola, and congregation. Perhaps it is time for the OF to finally embrace that reality. If the congregation is not singing every word of every song, that means nothing is wrong – according to the rubrics of the mass anyway. Perhaps we should consult what Todd prefers (or doesn't prefer), as per his second sentence above.
But I really think we should investigate what the church wants. And constant singing from those in the pews is very clearly not that. In fact, nothing is wrong with the choir singing the choir's part (while the congregation prays, without singing along). What a concept.
I think the Catholic Church is large enough to lovingly include congregations that don't care much for singing and congregations that do. In fact, within a single parish you'll often find the amount of singing varies greatly between Masses (Does anybody know of a parish where the 4pm Saturday Mass-goers sing as loudly as the 10am Sunday Mass-goers?)
It is a travesty of bad taste and abusiveness (of the people, but also the liturgy) to attempt to goad a non-singing group into singing, as so many overly happy, "Active Participation" enthusiasts are wont to do. (Apparently you can even pay big money to have a Calvinist from Scotland come to your parish and give you knew ways to accomplish such bullying).
But it is also a travesty of heartlessness and abuse (of the people, whether or not the liturgy) to go into a parish where the people sing well and loudly, and get a lot of doing so, and take all their hymns and songs away from them, saying, "Well, the Church says you should only chant the ordinary. The rest will be done by my small group of friends, er, I mean – the Schola."
I agree with Adam, and the suggestions of the post. At our parish, on the last 2 Sundays of Advent, the choir sang "Christus est natus" as a substitute for the Introit. Unfortunately, they sang it after the Introit bell, but before the procession, which began when they'd finished and was followed by a hymn. The result? While the choir was singing, the congregation 'had nothing to do' (like observe the altar being incensed), and so a number of them turned round to look at the choir up in the loft, and then had their heads in the hymn books while the sacred action unfolded! D'oh!
I've suggested reversing the order, similar to suggestions here, but it takes our priest a while to get his head around these things. We'll get there, though.
Active participation of congregation singing in Latin Rite,
1. Singing responses
2. Ordinary parts
If the congregation have more energy to sing after 1 and 2, add a couple of authentic Catholic hymns, place like after the communion Propers and as a recessional hymn, that are approved by the Roman Catholic tradition and by the Church as liturgical.
Recruit those who want to sing more to the choir to sing Propers as they represent the congregation vocally while the others pray inwardly and learn to sing beautiful polyphony to add more beautiful music to the Holy Mass.
I heard enough complains from the congregation for too much singing, especially so many hymns that they don't even know well, and that they really cannot concentrate on praying (singing stops being a prayer for them if they are required to do too much.)
Maybe the Church has a higher expectation of music literacy and music culture in our time, especially from this country?
It's unrealistic for parish musicians to expect that the congregation can and will sing everything. They need to priortize, and the list of the priority of congregational singing is given by the Church, almost a common sense from easy to more difficult. If you really desire for your congregation sing, help the priests or even deacons to sing their parts. This is a chance to do so with the new Missal being implemented soon, time to take a bit of bigger step. It would be shame to continue the same casual music with the new translation which expresses the Church's effort of trying to seperate from this casualness in the Holy Mass. Do the music we provide help the congregation approach the altar casually or enhance the Holyness?
"Do the music we provide help the congregation approach the altar casually or enhance the Holiness?"
Should be a required question of all music directors when they prepare the music for each week's mass. Submit the written answer of this question, re: each and every piece for that week, to the pastor of their parish for approval.
Could make for a lot of positive change, methinks.