This is a very good posting about the role of music in the new Missal. As we know, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to fundamentally change Catholic music. This could be the beginning of something amazing, a time for the restoration of beauty and solemnity. The preparations have long been made by such organizations as the Church Music Association of America (have you joined and do you financially support this crucial organization?).
4 Replies to “The Role of Music in the Implementation of the New Missal”
Comments are closed.
Tuesday I attended a conference given for priests of my diocese on the new translation, and I asked if we were going to begin singing the Credo. The presenter just gave me a puzzled look while another participant suggested we stick to those parts already being sung. I wonder how we went from always singing the Credo whenever other parts were sung (pre-1970) to never singing it at all. I agree that the new missal provides an exciting opportunity to recover some of these lost practices, but I think we are going to need to know which dioceses are promoting such a recovery so that we can refer to these when making our own proposals. If a few dioceses promote singing the Credo (and the dialogues, etc.), then there will be some pressure on other dioceses to do so also, and those who ask about the practice at meetings won’t seem quite so alien! (By the way, this is becoming my favorite blog!)
The Credo differs somewhat from the other movements of the Ordinary of the Mass. It is the profession of a rather long series of precise beliefs, while the others are direct acts of petition or praise. Its melodies are more formulaic and simpler, accommodating those differences. In the Middle Ages and Renaissance, there were certain restrictions on the Credo that did not apply to the other movements (the prohibition of alternation with the organ, for instance, requiring the text to be articulated clearly throughout the performance). On the other hand, in the same period, the length of text prompted the omission of about a third of it (many polyphonic settings omit about the last third; there is even a chant genre called "Credo Breve" which does the same thing).
I am the last person to discourage the singing of the Credo; my congregation sings the Credo (Credos I, III, IV); when the choir sings a polyphonic Mass, we always sing the Credo polyphonically. This is often not the case; both the Brompton Oratory and Westminster Cathedral sing the Credo in chant when they sing the other movements in polyphony.
There are those today who believe it is not appropriate to sing the Credo, just as they believe it inappropriate to sing the lessons (we always do that, too). The argument for singing the Credo can be made from tradition—it is always done in the old rite; from documents after the council—Musicam Sacram, par. 30; that it aids the congregation in performing the text together; and that it creates a greater unity of intention, lifts the hearts of those singing, and makes the delivery of the text more beautiful.
During the "reform" of the 1960s, my parish, which had been doing a Missa Cantata prior to then, continued to sing the Credo, in English, but stopped it when the Novus Ordo came into being. I don't recall the rationale, but for some reason, many of the music resources for the Novus Ordo did not include a musical setting of the Credo, so we abandoned singing it at that time since we could no longer use the prior translation of the Creed. Personally, I like the Credo sung. It adds a degree of solemnity and it is in keeping with that old saying of St. Francis "He who sings, prays twice."
GIRM 68 would seem to indicate that the Credo sung by choir alone is not an option, which I assume is the reason it's not often done. At a workshop recently we sang the new English version of Credo III which felt awkward; in any case the Credo and Pater Noster are the two items that everyone should be able to sing in Latin.
In Rome recently I attended the ordinary Sunday Mass in St Paul's-outside-the-Walls. Credo I was sung alternately by the concelebrating clergy and the congregation who seemed completely familiar with it. If congregations are coming to sing the Creed for the first time, Credo I is easier to learn as well as being more "authentic", and if for some inexplicable reason they want to sing it in English, the words fit the melody better than in Credo III.
By the way, if the new translation is supposed to be faithful to the Latin, what are the extra and completely redundant "I believe"s doing there?