Some of the most advanced thinkers in the world of music and liturgy have long identified the critical problem in Catholic music today. They have pointed out that the Mass itself provides for the texts and the music for the Mass, but in the General Instruction on on the Roman Missal, there appears a loophole. Musicians can sing what is appointed, or (“option 4”) they can sing something else, and that something else is limited only by what the musicians themselves deem as “appropriate.” What this has meant, in effect, is: anything goes. This is why it often seems that when it comes to music at Mass that, well, anything goes.
I’m happy to report that the legislative ground has just shifted, and dramatically so. The new translation of the General Instruction removes the discretion from the music team to sing pretty much whatever it wants. The new text, which pertains to the new translation of the Missal that comes into effect on Advent this year, makes it clear beyond any doubt: the music of the Mass is the chanted propers of the Mass. There are options but these options all exist within the universe of the primary normative chant. There can be no more making up some random text, setting it to music, and singing it as the entrance, offertory, or communion.
I have no doubt that the practice of singing non-liturgical texts will continue but it will now continue only under a cloud. If I’m reading this correctly, any text other than an appointed text for the Mass will now fall outside the boundaries provided for by the authoritative document that regulates the manner in which Mass is to proceed.
We can be sure that gigabytes of digits will be produced with the intention of explaining to me and everyone why what we can clearly read below does not really mean what it seems to be saying, that there has been some mistake in phrasing, that taking this literally is only the penchant of “traditionalists,” and that the prevailing practice surely has equal normative status. Nonetheless, the text is there, clear as a bell, and will be printed in all editions of the Missal that is now in preparation.
Catholic musicians of the world, the GIRM would like you to meet a new friend: the propers of the Mass.
Let us compare old and new:
The Entrance
2003 GIRM:
47. After the people have gathered, the Entrance chant begins as the priest enters with the deacon and ministers. The purpose of this chant is to open the celebration, foster the unity of those who have been gathered, introduce their thoughts to the mystery of the liturgical season or festivity, and accompany the procession of the priest and ministers.
48. The singing at this time is done either alternately by the choir and the people or in a similar way by the cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
2011 GIRM
48. This chant is sung alternately by the choir and the people or similarly by a cantor and the people, or entirely by the people, or by the choir alone. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for the Entrance Chant: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Gradual Romanum, as set to music there or in another setting; (2) the antiphon and Psalm of the Graduate Simplex for the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) another liturgical chant that is suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year, similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
Comment: There are several crucial differences. The new version clearly elevates the antiphons from the Roman Gradual or the Roman Missal as the core text. The old version had a mistake that had been confusing for years: it referred only to the Psalm from the Gradual. The new version clearly states that it is the antiphon and Psalm that are applicable from both books. Option three makes it clear that we are not talking about any song; we are talking about the liturgical chant, and there is a huge difference. Finally, option four blasts away the vague word “song” and again emphasizes chant, and with this important proviso: “suited to the sacred action, the day, or the time of year.” One would have to be deliberately obtuse not to see that this refers to the proper text of the day in question.
The Psalm
2003 GIRM:
61(d). [T]he following may also be sung in place of the Psalm assigned in the Lectionary for Mass: either the proper or seasonal antiphon and Psalm from the Lectionary, as found either in the Roman Gradual or Simple Gradual or in another musical setting; or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of the psalms and antiphons, including psalms arranged in metrical form, providing that they have been approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the responsorial Psalm.
2011 GIRM:
61(d). …[I]nstead of the Psalm assigned in the lectionary, there may be sung either the Responsorial Gradual from the Graduale Romanum, or the Responsorial Psalm or the Alleluia Psalm from the Graduale Simplex, as described in these books, or an antiphon and Psalm from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, including Psalms arranged in metrical fonn, providing that they have been approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop. Songs or hymns may not be used in place of the Responsorial Psalm.
The textual differences are subtle but with huge implications. The 2003 GIRM subtly and confusingly implied that you can only use the Gradual if the texts of the Psalm with the same as the Lectionary. I’m not sure how often that occurs, but this sort of phrasing clearly gives primacy to the Lectionary over the Psalter dating back to the earliest centuries. That phrasing is now gone. It is now fantastically clear that one can use the Gradual as a primary source. It is clearly not depreciated any longer. And this is important: the Graduals are the oldest known body of Christian music. They should be permitted and not depreciated in the Roman Rite.
The Offertory
2003 and 2011 GIRM texts are identical:
74. The procession bringing the gifts is accompanied by the Offertory chant (cf. above, no. 37b), which continues at least until the gifts have been placed on the altar. The norms on the manner of singing are the same as for the Entrance chant (cf. above, no. 48). Singing may always accompany the rite at the offertory, even when there is no procession with the gifts.
Comment: the meaning of the paragraph is wholly dependent on getting the rubrics on the Entrance chant correct. Because the new GIRM corrects the rubrics on the entrance chant, this one stands corrected too. But there is a wrinkle here that will cause some scrambling to occur come November. There is no offertory chant in the Missal. The only place to find this is in the official ritual book the Graduale Romanum. It can also be found in unofficial books like the Simple English Propers and the Simple Choral Gradual. Most Catholic singers will be stunned to learn that there is an appointed text here.
Communion
2003 GIRM
87. In the dioceses of the United States of America there are four options for the Communion chant: (1) the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the seasonal antiphon and Psalm of the Simple Gradual; (3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) a suitable liturgical song chosen in accordance with no. 86 above. This is sung either by the choir alone or by the choir or cantor with the people.
2011 GIRM
87. In the Dioceses of the United States of America, there are four options for singing at Communion: (1) the antiphon from the Missal or the antiphon with its Psalm from the Graduale Romanum, as set to music there or in another musical setting; (2) the antiphon with Psalm from the Graduale Simplex of the liturgical time; (3) a chant from another collection of Psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, including Psalms arranged in responsorial or metrical forms; (4) some other suitable liturgical chant (cf. no. 86) approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop.
Comment: once again, songs are out; chants are in. The word tangle in the first option that appeared in 2003 is now entirely gone. We aren’t talking about just the Psalm from the Roman Gradual. We are talking about the antiphons and Psalms from either the Missal or the Gradual. Thank you for that clarity; it makes a huge difference. Option three is also clear: not just any song but a chant like the first and section choice from another collection. Finally, a “suitable liturgical chant” in number four, folllowing the prior uses of the word chant, makes it very clear that the discretion here is gone. The texts must be from the liturgical books, as is implied with the mandate that it be approved by the USCCB or the Diocesan Bishop that regulates ritual texts for singing.
Only after the communion proper has been sung may a hymn be sung. The difference in word choice here is unambiguous: a chant is part of the liturgical structure. A hymn is something else. This usage is 100% consistent from the beginning of the GIRM 2011 to its end. And this clarity about usage finally removes all doubt about what must be sung at Mass: the Mass must be sung at Mass.
Now, I know what you are already thinking. You see a way around all this. Any pastor or musician can just decide to call the groovy tune that is chosen a “chant.” Here’s my chant, says Lady Gaga. It’s true that you could ignore the whole of English usage and call anything a chant, and I can also call my hat a banana and no one can stop me.
In like manner, you can ignore all the clear import of the mandates here pounce on the slight bit of liberality and say, hey, who’s gonna stop this? All of that is true. And so it is when dealing with children when you step out of the house for a bit: you can give the clearest instructions possible, a comprehensive list of dos and do nots, and yet somehow they will find a way to get around the rules. All of this is true.
In other words, it will still not be possible to bring an end to the pop music with random texts at Mass by waving this at your pastor’s face. It seems to me very clear that vast swaths of existing music used in the English speaking world are soon to be regarded as illicit. I don’t think there is any other honest way to read the new GIRM. There is very little if any room for anything now but the propers of the Mass.
I’m not naive and neither are you: the other songs will continue. Even so, they are not long for this world. The Church now speaks and sings with a clear voice; we can choose to sing along or sing some other song of our choosing.
____
Here is a fair-use excerpt scan sent my way.
Dear chant cafe,
I rejoice at the clarity of thought, and of Jeffrey's clarion advocacy. My fear is that, since practice has dictated principle for so many decades, more or less everyone from bishops to the faithful regard the lamentable status quo as the true music of the Roman Rite. When you quote from the GIRM you might find hostility as well as ignorance- almost all will think that you belong to another religion, or at least era. There is a rather Protestant mentality that the music of the Liturgy is a requests-bag, all about me. This loses the point that the Eucharistic Liturgy 'belongs to God'. I really do empathise with those who seek to set up their own camp to escape from the norm. But, something has to change, and soon. Joseph Cullen
What musical instruments are allowed at Mass? Is it ok to use a guitar occasionally
for a certain hymn or chant?
Pop songs aside, where do traditional hymns go in the Mass? Only after the Communion Antiphon, and perhaps for the recessional? Is Silent Night illicit for an offertory? I'm genuinely confused.
Hymns may be used for the recessional because recessional music is not described at all in the Missal. It is presented after the Mass and is completely unregulated.
In practice, hymns are commonly used in place of the entrance chant, the offertory, and the communion chant also, under the justification that they may qualify as "some other suitable liturgical chant". It's a carry-over of the typical four-hymn practice from the 1950s in which four hymns could be used in an otherwise spoken Mass.
If you have further questions about choosing music for Mass, you might like to see our forum site, the "Musica Sacra Forum".
Thank you for your response! It seems you're saying in the article that you can't substitute a hymn for the required antiphons, but then in your response, it seems you're saying that you can. I'm sure there isn't really a conflict here, and I'm just misunderstanding. Can you help me reconcile the two? Our music ministry is currently trying to work out exactly this dilemma.
Jeffrey (back in 2011) noticed the change in language in the U.S. version of the GIRM, which seems to be giving the principles for shifting our practice to a use of propers.
But implementing this will have to be a gradual process. For one thing, few clergy know about this change or what it implies; and few clergy in general know about the Church's preference for the propers. Even fewer lay people in the pews know that the propers even exist. Because of that, we don't want to implement changes to the Mass that cause shock or feelings of deprivation. Catechesis will be needed, and also half-way measures such as singing both a proper chant and a hymn. Or you might use a more chant-based approach for the principal parish Mass, while keeping hymns at other Masses.
Moreover, there may be a good argument for tolerating the use of hymns, on the basis that it's a custom which has been approved by the bishops for numerous decades – long enough to make it legitimate, even when the text of the law changes. (Church law is so complicated that you may need an expert to determine whether a widely accepted practice is actually unlawful.)
Also, when implementing music for the Mass, keep in mind the model recommended by the document Musicam Sacram, shortly after Vatican II (1967). It provides a plan for phasing in music (paragraphs 29-32); the first things to sing are the dialogues of priest and people; then the rest of the Mass ordinary, with the proper parts coming later.
What about all the Catholics, like me, who have been practicing for the past 60 years, who were altar boys back when the mass was in latin, who became more involved when the Mass was switched to english, and even more involved as more contemporary worship music was allowed to be introduced into the Mass (such as at the Newman Centers) who do not wish to revert the celebration of their faith back to a ritual reminiscent of the Dark Ages? I fear that there will be a lot of Catholics, like me who will be leaving the Catholic Church to find another place for worship. No less Christian. Just no longer Catholic.
Well, that is a real expression of bitterness.
Mr. JPW is threatening not just to leave his parish, but to quit the Catholic Church altogether if the parish dares to sing the Mass in the way the Church recommends.
It reminds me of the situation of people who wanted to attend Mass in Latin in the 1980s, after it had disappeared almost everywhere in this country. They felt that something wonderful and beautiful had been taken from them. Some of them ended up going to unauthorized chapels and became rather alienated from their local diocese.
Now, if every parish within an hour of JPW's home has dropped vernacular hymns in favor of chanted propers, I'll have some sympathy for him. It's not his fault that he likes a certain type of music, and it is a burden to have to go far for it. If JPW is having a hard time finding music from the 80s and 90s in a church anywhere near him, can he please let us know where that has happened? We'll want to find out more and write about that unusual situation.
Our new priest is by the book. I've been a cantor and sang with a guitar group for over thirty years now.
The liturgical music has always been sacred to me and we've take great pains to make sure the music aligned with the Liturgy of the word. This is coming at a time when I am loosing my spouse to cancer as well.
No more guitars. Only organ or chant.
How have we gone so wrong since 1962. If we are going to follow the rubrics to the letter today then the priest should say the mass in the preferred language of the church LATIN and not in the vernacular. You shouldn't pick and choose. I am trying my best to say YOUR WILL not mine.
Isn't it interesting that you neglect and even mock the sentiments of this faithful parishioner who has weathered much these last years in our church and stayed faithful. Your tone is pure snobbery. Not at all Christian and you used his post more as a lecture than a dialogue. Thank goodness heaven will be full of sinners. God is the great equalizer.
Now, was it Mr. JPW's responsibility to steer that ship toward the VII rubric or was it the bishops? Huh…
I could feel sympathy for YOU if your ignorance wasn't sticking out. Shouldn't EVERY Catholic in the Western Church be miffed that we lacked leadership and have been doing it WRONG all these years?
Now all of a sudden the western church decides to get in line.
I'm a classically trained cellist. It is the one instrument that is closets to the human voice. It predates the organ. I've played at many masses over the last 54 years and today was told: The organ or voice are the only acceptable instrument for mass. That is my God given talent, and my treasure was to support the music of the liturgy with it. We are to give our time, talents, and treasure. The first fruits.
Your response is what drives people from the church. It's smug. You need to remember whom Christ came for.
I'm pretty sure your arrogance misses the agony that was felt by MANY Catholics when the Latin mass was dropped in the US en lieu of the vernacular. I was around for those days and saw my parents openly weep.
I also live in the deep South. We don't have a Catholic church on every corner. It's an hour to the next church. There are some beautiful hymns based on the scriptures that are present day! Where was all the bravado and nashing of teeth the last 50 years?
If you want to be a snob be offended that the bishops allow people who actively promote abortion in the US to receive communion.
If they are going to hold us to Gregorian Chant…beautifully sung strictly by the male voice… then by golly there better not be one slip up in the Rubrics of the Mass. Do unto others brother.
Redmom, if my comment above (written several months ago) seems harsh — well, I guess it contains its own explanation, in response to what JPW wrote.
Thanks for contributing to the music in your parish; I'd love to hear cello at Mass, and anyone who says that *only* voice and organ are acceptable — well, they would have a hard time trying to prove that from Church teaching on music.
Sympathies to you and your family in this difficult time.