During Lent in the Roman Rite, choirs stop singing Alleluia before the Gospel. These days, the most common replacement is called the “Gospel Acclamation” but that is not the tradition of the Roman Rite. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, in Lent, the Alleluia is replaced by the Tract. “The name Tract, Psalmus tractus, was given to it, because it was sung straight through without any answer [antiphon] by the choir.”
The Tract makes an appearance in the current General Instruction on the Roman Missal: 62(b): “During Lent, in place of the Alleluia, the verse before the Gospel is sung, as indicated in the Lectionary. It is also permissible to sing another psalm or tract, as found in the Graduale.”
Further, since the Roman Gradual is the normative music of the Roman Rite, one could say that it is clearly preferable to use the tract rather than something else, whatever it may be. (You could take the argument further and perhaps make the case that the Missal acclamation text is primarily structured for reading not for singing, as with the Missal propers in general, and so for singing, one must turn to the Gradual.)
If there is an ordinary form parish somewhere that uses the tract – the full tract from the Graduale, which are very long and very difficult – I’m unaware of it. Or rather: I can think of perhaps two or three cases in the country where this might be done, but the tradition in unknown anywhere else. There are very obvious reasons why. If parishes find it to be a herculean effort to sing Angus Dei, putting together a schola to sing a seven-minute tract in Latin during Lent is highly improbable.
But this post is not about problems; it is about creative solutions. And truly, what I am about to show you is one of the most creative I’ve ever encountered. (Aside: have you noticed that there have been more innovations in integrating the old and new forms of the rite within the last three years than in the previous 40 years combined?)
The solution is to revive the tract by offering it in English set according to a beautiful Psalm tone, so that it can be sung by alternating solo and choir or two choirs or just two singers. Psalm tones are gorgeous and haunting and perfect for Lent. People are not used to hearing them and they are so….Catholic! Yes, the Gregorian original would be better in Latin but that option is clearly not being taken right now and it has been available for many decades. What we need is a way to revive the Tract in the current environment.
Aristotle Esguerra has provided that solution. I gave you
prepared by Aristotle Esguerra, one of the most creative, productive, and brilliant Catholic musicians working today. This are very easy to sing but produce a fantastic result. The text comes through in a clear narrative, which is exactly what Psalm tones are designed to do, and they do so prayerfully and solemnly.
Each of these can be sung by anyone with very little practice. And doing through extends the time before the Gospel, produce a sense of stillness and reflection. It is all the more reasonable to do these within Lent because there is no Gloria, which then allows more time for a different form of music.
This approach also helps single out Lent as a special liturgical time different from the rest. The people will know this and hear this (whereas a short Gospel Acclamation makes Lent seem pretty much like the rest of the year.
This is a way of restoring Roman rite tradition in stages. This is a gigantic first step. If nothing else, if a pastor is squeamish about using this before the Gospel, singers can use this tract during the offertory. At least in this case, the choir is actually contributing to the liturgical structure rather than just being there to “provide music” of some sort to pass the time.
Congratulations to Aristotle for his work here. And a special thanks goes out to him for make this a free download for the whole English-speaking Church. There are some editions of the tracts available in Psalm tones but I believe this is the first to come out in modern English and the first new edition in many decades.
A note on performance, and I suppose that this can’t be said enough. There are two clefs in Gregorian notation, C and F. The half step of the scale occurs just before the clef marking. This way you can go to the piano and pitch it out. Each tones only has four notes so this should not be a problem for anyone. As for rhythm here, the pace should follow the speech pattern you would use in reading, with word accents as the English language would suggest. If you do those things, this will be beautiful, effective, and thoroughly liturgical.
Nit: That further argument is falsified by the fact that the same text indicates that the Lectionary verse is sung….
yes, I can read. But the GIRM is not the final word on these matters, especially given the obvious verbal tangles on the relationship between the Missal and Gradual – people have been trying to amend the text to fix these for years.
Except that your further argument included that overstating "must". Had you merely noted that one might legitimately choose that, then I would have not nitpicked. The tendency to overstate is an unnecessary obstacle. (I am making the same critique of erstwhile arguments from the praise jazz hands chorus from the British Isles over at Pray Tell. It would be nice to see Reform of the Reform folks not mirror the mistakes of certain progressives who preceded them in the lists. Overstatement for the sake of clarity in liturgical discussion bears no good fruit.)
Don't forget that the GIRM does give the option for the tract in par 62:
During Lent, in place of the Alleluia, the verse before the Gospel is sung, as indicated
in the Lectionary. It is also permissible to sing another psalm or tract, as found in the
Graduale
I find it, by the way, interesting that so far the comments have been about tiny aspects of legislation and tut tutting about some language and other petty things. Where is the big picture? This is a phenomenal innovation, truly historic and thrilling! Where are the congratulations to Aristotle for seeing a solution to a forty-year old problem? Where is the celebration of progress in art and liturgical beauty? Where is the joy that we now have another free resource to actually sing the Mass in a way that points toward our tradition?
This is why people hate the blogosphere.
I think this is an incredible resource. I think Aristotle is to be commended. Aristotle has "done it again."
Incidentally, Aristotle also provides beautiful (free) versions of the Gospel acclamation at http://garnieralleluias.org
I have introduced the notion of a Tract to my 3rd- through 12th-grade schola students, and they will be singing a Tract during their upcoming First-Friday Mass, which is currently slated to be celebrated by our bishop.
The Graduale Romanum version of the Qui confidunt tract sets only the first two verses of Psalm 124(125) to a florid melody, in contrast to the Graduale Simplex version, which sets the whole psalm to a psalm tone; the students will sing an English version of the latter.
The decision to employ the Tract in this case is not only educational but also in a sense functional, as incense will be put to use at the Gospel reading, and six verses is more likely to cover the action of preparing incense than three. (Not that the Tract's purpose is necessarily to cover a liturgical action purely.)
Englished Simplex tracts are also available from Paul F. Ford's By Flowing Waters for those interested in this type of interlectionary chant.
Aristotle's efforts are praise worthy indeed, and am considering using it for this Sunday. But there are two serious hurdles to overcome apart from the enamour that parishes have with maintaining the status quo. The first is the perception that active participation means that people ought to sing the refrain for the so-called Gospel Acclamation. This view is easily defended if it is considered as an extension of the attitude towards the responsorial psalm based on congregational "participation" over which Msgr Bugnini was ecstatic once the latter was accepted and approved. One can always frame the acclamation refrain around the Tract to allow for congregational participation in song for this occasion, if it were not for the second hurdle. This is that the idea of a Gospel acclamation is meant to be some kind of congregational applause through song for the upcoming Gospel reading, as if a well-known performer were entering the stage. This is a novelty in the Roman Rite. The Gregorian Alleluias in contrast were introduced late into the Roman schola repertoire probably at the request of one of the Greek popes, likely Gregory II, to parallel a similar Byzantine practice. The Tracts are likely of quite ancient origin, the current melodies having incorporated some ancient melodic features. But both are meditative in nature, preparing our hearts to receive the Gospel with anticipation. In the Novus Ordo, that is no longer the case. The verses are now from the Gospel reading, and are meant to somehow give exuberance to the occasion. A meditative Tract does not fit in well with that prevalent attitude.
"Where is the big picture? This is a phenomenal innovation, truly historic and thrilling! Where are the congratulations to Aristotle for seeing a solution to a forty-year old problem? Where is the celebration of progress in art and liturgical beauty? Where is the joy that we now have another free resource to actually sing the Mass in a way that points toward our tradition?"
No offense to Aristotle because these settings are very nice, but writing pieces to psalm tones is like an arithmetic problem, not calculus. It hardly warrants the suggestion that gobs of people have been struggling with a major obstacle that has now been cracked with a flash of genius. Let's call Richard Taruskin and let him know. Where is the big picture indeed.
Would you please explain to me what is meant by "the GIRM is not the final word on these matters?" Perhaps I am mistaken, but the General Instruction on the Roman Missal provides the normative guidelines which are to be used in the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I don't know of the existence of another normative document which superceeds what is contained in the GIRM.
"In the Novus Ordo, that is no longer the case. The verses are now from the Gospel reading, and are meant to somehow give exuberance to the occasion. A meditative Tract does not fit in well with that prevalent attitude."
Prevalent attitudes can and need to be changed. Aristotle has had a brilliant idea here and the number of people nitpicking and complaining and deriding it attest not to the weakness of this move, but the strength of it.
It is easy to sit back and whine, harder to step up, make a decision and follow through on it, knowing that there will always be people who, for their own reasons, will try to rip it to shreds.
To say that the Gospel is to always be greeted with exuberance, no matter what the Gospel reading is to be about ignores the richness of the words and the thoughts that are about to be proclaimed.
It's further proof of the homogenization of Catholic liturgy, replacing the Hours, Novenas, Forty Hours and other liturgies with the one size fits all Mass, celebrated at any hour and for some period of time, in any place.
"No offense to Aristotle because these settings are very nice, but writing pieces to psalm tones is like an arithmetic problem, not calculus."
Bach's music is also pure arithmetic. Let's throw it out, too.
Setting words to a psalm tone, Gregorian or Anglican, can be pure mathematics. And these mathematical settings enrage singers, who pour down wrath upon the person that sets them this way.
The greeks who understood music as being math also understood the beauty of pure music where the words fit the music.
I agree that anyone could have set these words to these tunes. But no way as well as Aristotle has done!
To Anon. above, the trouble with all brilliant solutions is that once they are offered, they seem obvious in retrospect. Instead of "wow, a genius came up with this," we tend to say, "yeah, sure, I could have come up with that."
This is a mark of something truly brilliant.
The settings are nice, but like Anon I'm not sure exactly how they qualify as a stroke of genius. The 1957 Solesmes book for Mass & Vespers that on MusicaSacra had a whole section (pp. 1888ff.) of these settings titled "Pieces that, because of their length, may be adapted to a Psalm-tone." Of course they're in Latin, but, after all, it was 54 years ago.
And the Ward book whose thread on the Forum was recently revived is basically nothing but propers set to psalm tones to make them simpler and faster to sing. Am I missing wherein the flash of brilliance lies?
No offense, of course, is meant toward Mr. Esguerra, who did not, as best I can tell, announce his own effort as a heartbreaking work of staggering genius anyway. It's quite nice and will hopefully be helpful, but at bottom it's just an English translation set to a psalm tone. The sort of groundwork that has to be laid, but not really on the level of the Simple English Propers.
Right?
Ok, whatever. But even from your accounting of this, it is clear that no one had yet done precisely this thing before. It seems like a normal resource, something that would be everywhere but in fact it is not, at least not until this morning. If today it seems like a no brainer, why is it that it took 40 years to appear?
As nice as the proposed solution is, I don't see how it can be allowed in the OF according to the current GIRM. The choices seem to be either 1)the verse indicated in the Lectionary, or 2) the psalm or tract in the Graduale. The latter is necessarily in Latin, so I don't see how Mr. Esguerra's proposal, as good as it is, falls under option 2.
I think this would be a good idea, and if a request were made for some dispensation for it I think it would be great but until that happens using this makes me very uncomfortable. Its hard to ask others to stick with the rubrics when one isn't following them exactly either. Someone at a mass where this was used would have a legitmate place to complain, and it would expose chant advocates to more criticism and difficulties.
"the General Instruction on the Roman Missal provides the normative guidelines which are to be used in the celebration of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite. I don't know of the existence of another normative document which superceeds what is contained in the GIRM".
————————————————
The GIRM is honored more in the breach than in it's observance. There are parishes where neither the liturgy committee, nor the pastor know of it, and, if they did know of it, would probably treat the GIRM as a body of guidelines and nothing more. Creative geniuses don't need "normative" documents anyway. Aristotle, William Byrd, Palestrina, Victoria, et al couldn't be bothered.
The future of the liturgy belongs in the hands of the local bishop, not fuddy duddies and canonists in Rome.
The thing is, while putting all the tracts for lenten sundays and feasts isn't exactly rocket science, no one has done it yet into a single volume that's nicely typeset, in english. If they have, I've not seen it.
It was so obvious, no one thought to do it (Besides Aristotle 🙂 ).
"The GIRM is honored more in the breach than in it's observance."
How do you honor something by violating it?
"There are parishes where neither the liturgy committee, nor the pastor know of it, and, if they did know of it, would probably treat the GIRM as a body of guidelines and nothing more."
I think more parishes know what the GIRM is than not. After citing what the GIRM is ("…the normative guidelines which are to be used…") and then making this statement seem to be a contradiction of whatever point was being articulated. To me, it returns to the "honoring by violating" phrase I wrote. And ignoring it is the ultimate violation.
"Creative geniuses don't need 'normative' documents anyway. Aristotle, William Byrd, Palestrina, Victoria, et al couldn't be bothered."
Straw men are usually not useful; this one is. A normative document provides the boundaries, the framework in which to operate. All the better, for this allows the creative genius an opportunity to even be more imaginative, since certain avenues are not permitted.
"The future of the liturgy belongs in the hands of the local bishop, not fuddy duddies and canonists in Rome."
Funny, Benedict XVI is neither a fuddy duddy nor a canonist. This "local bishop" is providing for the future of the liturgy, as are many of us who labor at the parish level. Looks like both ends are squeezing the middle.
I would enjoy Aristotle's, Jeffrey's, Adam B's, JMO's or Mahrt's take on Pancho's deduction. The use of the tracts are of special and imminent interest to me.
Second question for AE/et al: can a tract text be truncated or abbreviated? I fret over celebrant pushback because of the "compact unity" they misperceive in the so-called Gospel Acclamation.
"2) the psalm or tract in the Graduale. The latter is necessarily in Latin, so I don't see how Mr. Esguerra's proposal, as good as it is, falls under option 2."
Why not? Isn't OF about the permission of the translation in vernacular? So I don't see why the translation of the Tract sung in vernacular cannot be permitted when everything else is permittned in vernacular in OF?
Ben said…
"The thing is, while putting all the tracts for lenten sundays and feasts isn't exactly rocket science, no one has done it yet into a single volume that's nicely typeset, in english. If they have, I've not seen it.
It was so obvious, no one thought to do it (Besides Aristotle 🙂 )."
Same thing with the SEP in a larger scale. I think this is wonderful that we have Tracts in a simpler form. One more step close to singing them from Graduale. I love it. Those who don't think they can sing them, please never mind.
The permission for the vernacular flows not from the General Instruction of the Roman Missal but from Sacrosanctum Concilium 36.2:
"But since the use of the mother tongue, whether in the Mass, the administration of the sacraments, or other parts of the liturgy, frequently may be of great advantage to the people, the limits of its employment may be extended. This will apply in the first place to the readings and directives, and to some of the prayers and chants, according to the regulations on this matter to be laid down separately in subsequent chapters. (emphasis added)"
See also 36.4, which calls into question the effort that appears here:
"Translations from the Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy must be approved by the competent territorial ecclesiastical authority ("the Apostolic See, and as laws determine, on the bishop" (22.1); also "competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established", "within certain defined limits" (22.2))."
Since I used the translation from The Gregorian Missal for Sundays it is almost certainly the case that, without approval from the bishop, my setting cannot be used without violating liturgical norms.
However, if this same effort were replicated with a scriptural translation approved for liturgical use (such as the Grail or NAB), no such permission seems to be warranted, especially given the bishops' inverting of a permission into a mandate regarding usage of the vernacular in the liturgy more than a generation ago.
I find this discussion fascinating because an effort like mine would never see the light of day in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite, where Latin usage is de rigueur, yet we're discussing the circumscription of the tract in the Ordinary Form to Latin-only sources.
Hi everyone,
I need to solve a riddle:
In the EF, why is there a Tract on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays but not on other days?
Please enlighten me.
Thanks.
Jeffrey, Great post! Up with the Lenten Tracts! I see no contradiction here, I see it as a way forward, perhaps leading up to an eventual syncing up of Missal and Gradual. Until then, I think one can proceed in peace, the gradual was, after all, given to us by the church for use with OF. (J. Morse)
"These days, the most common replacement is called the 'Gospel Acclamation' but that is not the tradition of the Roman Rite. As the Catholic Encyclopedia explains, in Lent, the Alleluia is replaced by the Tract."
If the Gospel Acclamation occurs in books bearing the heading: "ROMAN MISSAL: Reformed by Decree of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council and Promulgated by Authority of Pope Paul VI," doesn't / hasn't that become, de facto, "the tradition of the Roman Rite," traditio being that which is handed on to us, in this case, by the Supreme Legislator?
And the Catholic Encyclopedia, last time I checked, did NOT bear such a heading . . .
to Anonoymous@7pm on 3/8/11
""2) the psalm or tract in the Graduale. The latter is necessarily in Latin, so I don't see how Mr. Esguerra's proposal, as good as it is, falls under option 2."
Why not? Isn't OF about the permission of the translation in vernacular? So I don't see why the translation of the Tract sung in vernacular cannot be permitted when everything else is permittned in vernacular in OF?"
————————————————
It's not a question of whether a translation of the tract can be permitted or not. It's a question of whether it has already has been permitted or not. As far as I can tell it hasn't. An official English translation of the Graduale for use in the liturgy does not exist and the section of the GIRM dealing with the Gospel Acclamation does not give options for "(3) a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons, approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop, etc. " or "(4) a suitable liturgical song similarly approved by the Conference of Bishops or the Diocesan Bishop" as it does for the Entrance and other processional chants, nor does it reference them. Therefore, I don't believe those options can be legitimately used to justify the replacement of a vernacular Gospel Acclamation with a tract in the vernacular under the present GIRM.
Because the option of another "suitable liturgical song" does not exist at this point in the Mass, it then becomes an issue of whether doing this violates Redemptionis Sacramentum:
"59. The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy."
To Mr. Esguerra,
"However, if this same effort were replicated with a scriptural translation approved for liturgical use (such as the Grail or NAB), no such permission seems to be warranted, especially given the bishops' inverting of a permission into a mandate regarding usage of the vernacular in the liturgy more than a generation ago."
————————————————
I don't believe this is correct. I believe you would still need special permission from the bishops or a competent authority, even if using a scriptural translation previously approved, because I believe those approvals were specific and within certain uses and/or limits.
Consider that the revised NAB was not given blanket approval but changes had to be made before it's approval for use in the last edition of the U.S. Lectionary. I believe the new revised Grail was given permission for use at the responsorial psalm but I don't believe it extended beyond that, so a publisher could not use it for the missal antiphons, Gospel acclamation verses or other parts of the lectionary or missal.
The translations of the sung Propers in the Solesmes Gregorian Missal were, according to the authors,"in no way intended for use in the liturgy". Yet the Simple Propers Project uses them for Introit, Offertory and Communion, and I can see no reason why they shouldn't be used for the Tract as well.
Before I took over the running of the schola in the parish to which I have recently moved, they were using the same (vernacular) acclamation for all the Sundays in Lent, set to a trite advertising-jingle melody. The parish priest wanted to keep the idea of an acclamation but in a Gregorian form and preferably in Latin. I came up with a simple one which will frame two verses of the Tract for the respective Sunday, sung in Latin by the schola.
On the first Sunday of Lent all the sung Propers in the Graduale are taken from Psalm 90, which of course appears in the Tract almost in its entirety. I think the congregation has a right to hear this psalm, so we are singing Mr Esguerra's setting at the Offertory. It is therefore irrelevant as to whether the bishops have approved the translation or not.
The congregation will be singing Mass XVII for the first time, Credo III (recently reintroduced), Pater Noster, Attende Domine at the Communion and Ave Regina Caelorum at the end. Celebration ad orientem is now the norm (nobody objected) and we are eagerly awaiting the implementation of the corrected translation in September.
The Introit, Offertory, and Communion have the option for another suitable song. The Gospel Acclamation does not. When the Simple Propers Project uses the translations from the Solesmes Gregorian Missal, those fall under the option for another suitable song, not under "the Psalm from the Roman Gradual" since, as I noted above, that is necessarily in Latin.
There is nothing wrong with using Mr. Esguerra's setting at the Offertory because the Offertory has the option for another suitable song. Under that option translation isn't an issue. But again, that option doesn't exist for the Gospel Acclamation which the GIRM describes as a rite or act in intself.
"The Introit, Offertory, and Communion have the option for another suitable song. The Gospel Acclamation does not. When the Simple Propers Project uses the translations from the Solesmes Gregorian Missal, those fall under the option for another suitable song, not under "the Psalm from the Roman Gradual" since, as I noted above, that is necessarily in Latin."
There is something important that is left out here in the above quote: "…as set to music there or in another musical setting" (GIRM 48)
Are these "other musical settings" only to be done in Latin? Can the texts of the Roman Gradual not be sung in the vernacular in the liturgy? The answer obviously is that they can be. And this is not "alius cantus aptus", I do not believe, but my very strong sense is that this is still well within option #1.
By the same token I don't see anything in the legislation that prohibits the singing of any of the texts of the Roman Gradual in vernacular translation, even if there are no official vernacular translations of this book.
Fine work Mr. Esguerra!
I also don't think there's anything prohibiting the singing of the texts of the Roman Gradual in vernacular translation. The question is, where can it be licitly done at mass?
What is the plain meaning of of the GIRM 48.(1)?
"the antiphon from the Roman Missal or the Psalm from the Roman Gradual as set to music there or in another musical setting".
The choices under that option are either a)the antiphon from the Roman Missal or b) the Psalm from the Roman Gradual. Which Psalm for letter b? The Psalm from the Roman Gradual? In what language does the Psalm from the Roman Gradual appear? In Latin. Does "another musical setting" include another language? I don't think so because the instruction, "as set to music there or in another muical setting" describes a change in music, not in text.
Both the Missal and the Gradual are official liturgical books. Has an official translation of the Missal been provided for use in public worship? Yes it has. Has an official translation of the Gradual been provided for use in public worship? No it hasn't.
If language did not matter under that option, publishers could print antiphons in their Missals using translations other than the official one as long as the biblical citations matched. Of course, they cannot do this.
That's why I don't believe the Simple Propers Project, or the American Gruadual, or the Anglican Use Gradual technically fall under option #1 though I do think they follow it in spirit. Fortunately there is "alius cantus aptus" which allows us to follow the spirit of the first option in the vernacular while following the letter of this last one. I think this is a terrific approach to the entrance, preparation of the gifts and communion.
Unfortunately this solution doens't exist for the Gospel Acclamation. Maybe this shouldn't be the case but for the present it's what we have. We can't argue for a greater fidelity to the rubrics and legislation while at the same time ignoring them where it doesn't fit our ideals.
Pancho, you might want to look at the Latin. This has been discussed widely but that translation is very confused and attempts to make it more accurate have been alive for years. No time for me to dig up the details now, but it is widely discussed. Even on the face of it, it is wrong: the entrance antiphon is not always a Psalm. Surely it cannot be that we can only sing the Psalms but never the antiphon.
Pancho, I still think that this interpretation is too narrow. Though your logic sounds reasonable on a legal standpoint, I think that the entire idea is absolutely absurd. Unfortunately the ambiguities in the GIRM do not help us here, especially the very problematic wording of the USCCB adaptation of GIRM's 48 and 87 (antiphon from the Roman Missal or psalm from the Roman Gradual–this makes no sense and a group of cathedral musicians identified the problems encountered in it to the BCL a few years ago and an equally ambiguous response was given that clarified nothing and opted not to change the wording. This can be found online somewhere.)
Would you regard Paul Ford's "By Flowing Waters" as alius cantus aptus? His translation is not from an official source, but it translates an official book and it has an ecclesiastical stamp. Alius cantus aptus? This is understood to be an approved variant of Option #2 in the GIRM.
Mr. Tucker, I don't believe it's a mattter of a confused translation. I'll grant you that the wording for the entrance is a little odd but that argument doesn't extend to the section on the Gospel acclamation which specifically names the tract.
That argument is also dangerous because it can be used to justify all sorts of practices or changes to rite.
The GIRM is not difficult and on the whole it's pretty straightforward.
I'm not a liturgical nit-picker but I'm surprised that people are so willing to look for wiggle room in GIRM 61 & 63 when it really is clear and simple.
"I'm not a liturgical nit-picker but I'm surprised that people are so willing to look for wiggle room in GIRM 61 & 63 when it really is clear and simple."
Singing the texts of the Roman Gradual is pretty clear–no wiggling here. You have to prove that an unapproved translation of the Roman Gradual cannot be sung. This is your weakest argument, and I don't think it holds up.
Mr. Bartlett, first, I've been told that you cannot prove a negative. I don't know how to prove that you cannot sing an unapproved translation of the Gradual. I'll repeat that the question is not whether it can be sung, but when it can be sung at mass.
I meant to write "GIRM 62 & 63" above. Sorry about that.
The wiggle room I find to be a problem is not that people want to sing before the Gospel. The GIRM explicitly directs people to do so. The problem I find is the wiggle room people are looking for when the GIRM says "another psalm or tract, as found in the Graduale". Unlike other sections it doesn't allow for othe sources at that point but people are trying to read it differently.
The thing is I don't think the GIRM is all that ambiguous. As I wrote before on the whole I think it's pretty straighforward.
When questions arise I think it's best to go with the simplest reading of it until those questions are further clarified from competent sources. As far as I can tell most people have understood GIRM 48 and 47 to refer to the chants in the Roman Gradual with little confusion, which is why Solesmes could print the actual antiphons and not just psalm verses in the Gregorian Missal.
As to By Flowing Waters, I'll have to look into it some more. I think it's good resource, every parish should have copies, but for now I'm inclined to think of it as falling technically under "alius cantus aptus". Maybe there have been more recent developments but my copy of By Flowing Waters says at the front:
"By Flowing Waters: Chants for the Liturgy is in no sense an official liturgical book. It is designed as a collection of chants, chiefly from biblical and liturgicla sources, for use during the liturgy when alternatives to official liturgical texts may be chosen."
I just concluded a brief phone chat with Dr. Marht, suffice it to say I'm breathing easier.
I'm hoping he'll chime in himself after he reviews some sources.
Cross refer to MusicaSacra Forum to read Prof. Mahrt's reflections on the subject.
I've read Prof. Mahrt's reflections at MusicaSacra Forum and I'm afraid I don't find them comvincing. For example, I don't see how one can assert that the GIRM is oriented completely to the vernacular liturgy. It's just the English translation of the "Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani", written in Latin. It governs how mass is celebrated in this country whether in English or in Latin. The absence of an official translation for the Gradual in istelf does not argue for the freedom to use any translation under, for example, option 1 of GIRM 48, otherwise we could already be using any translation of our choice for the 3rd edition of the Roman Missal.
The Missal and the Gradual are both official liturgical books have their typical editions in Latin. How is the first subject to translation norms and the second isn't.?
Pancho, sweet blogsite! Look forward to checking out your music offerings. You're familiar with Brazilian tour-de-force guitarist/singer Leonin?
Anyway, besides ensuring the credibility of RotR advocates by admonitions that we not break a twig of the tree that is the letter of liturgical legislations, do you have any other axes to grind? (I don't mean that disparagingly.)I could presume that your very ardent and persuasive defenses above attest to a basic adherence to the fully realized TLM. But I'd rather know if there's more to where you're coming from regarding dismissing the initiative of Aristotle's enterprise. Care to share?
I think the GIRM does allow for an English tract, at least using an official psalm translation. If it read “the tract found in the Gradual” that might be different but “another psalm or tract, as found in the gradual” seems to suggest a much broader permission.
Although the conversation seems to have long passed by this point, I will note that "The Anglican Use Gradual" (2004) has English language tracts for each Sunday in Lent.
True and I like that language but for mainstream parishes, the language is too much of a stretch, a point I don't entirely understand but enough people say this that it convinces me it is true. There must be no unnecessary barriers to the embrace of sacred music.
I apologize for not replying sooner, but I've had to be away from the computer.
To Aiden, to me "as found in" seems to be pointing to the gradual as the source for "another psalm or tract".
To Mr. Tucker, I don't really understand that last message, but I appreciate this site and your allowing me to air my view.
To Mr. Culbreth, thanks! It's not a serious blog, more of a profile page. I'm don't think I know Leonin. Do you mean Lenine? I do like Brazilian music very much.
Where am I coming from? It's hard to say and would take up too much space here. I can say that I'm actually not a traditionalist or devotee of the TLM (though I respect it and I think Summorum Pontificium is a good thing). I'm a bit of an odd fit in the liturgical discussions online. I'm sincerely a fan of chant, in Latin and the vernacular, and of classic liturgy (you should see my collection of chant Cds). At the same time I'm open to other expressions of music,worship and to new movements in the Catholic church, in a way that might not be popular. A phrase someone else uses "traditional but not a traditionalist" isn't a complete description but it might give you some idea of where I'm coming from.
I don't think I have any axes to grind at the moment. I don't think I'm an extreme stickler for the rubrics. I think Mr. Esguerra's proposal has merit. It just doesn't fit into the present instruction, as its written. I don't think the instruction is ambiguos on this point.
I just think ensuring care in worship means reading the rubrics and instructions in good faith and starting with a common understanding. I was dismayed when I found what seemed like encouragement to move from a plain reading and a common understanding. It's a bad road to follow, and as I wrote before it will expose chant advocates to criticism and difficulties. It's because I like chant, and I think we should have more of it, that I was dismayed at the encouragement for this approach to the instruction.
I'm amused at the delight and vitriol that has resulted from a posting of what, without the liturgical context, arguably does amount to a simple musical-mathematical exercise. I'm happier about the success of the editorial-programmatic exercise, that is, being able to get Gregorio to do my bidding and making the layout look decent.
On paper, these settings are dead easy, even boring. In practice, I suspect not. Especially for a church that has forgotten how to sing unaccompanied, and more crucially, has forgotten how to listen. Psalm 46:10 and all.
Ted K and Noel have it right. Without an ritual "attitude adjustment," singing the tract in whatever form will cause consternation. Which is why I introduce these things to the young, for often it is easier to teach kids than adults.
And for what it's worth, the parishes I serve will still use the Lenten Gospel Acclamation for Sunday Masses for the foreseeable future.
Pancho, the problem is in reading the GIRM as if it were a legal document intended to be read without context of history or tradition or even the context of the document itself. Liturgy just can't be done this way. Because the GIRM has no instructions on incensing an altar, does that mean it is just fine dancing up the altar with bellowing bowls of smoke? The GIRM doesn't speak on the issue but there are right ways and wrong ways to do things. As regards vernacular chant, the entire GIRM (as Mahrt points out) is written to speak to the vernacular celebration so it would be absurd to to see its frequent embrace of the Roman Gradual as only pertaining to Latin. In fact, the GIRM has never been understood this way. It is just not enough for a lay person to look to this as a legal document, the way we might read the county code to deal with a traffic citation or something.
Mr. Tucker, I'm afraid Prof. Mahrt is mistaken about the GIRM. As Adoremus.org writes about an earlier edition (http://www.adoremus.org/GIRM(music).html), "Although translated for use in the English speaking countries these norms are the universal law of the Church for the Latin Rite." It really is that simple, otherwise it wouldn't cover celebrations of the Ordinary Form in Latin, for instance.
If I'm not mistaken the GIRM is a legal document, as it governs the celebration of the Mass. I believe I am reading in context of history or tradition. Unlike the Anglicans, it hasn't been our practice to sing the tract in the vernacular in either form of the Roman Rite. Until recently it seems it was generally understood that references to the Gradual in the GIRM were to its chants in Latin and under GIRM 367. By your reasoning, "another musical setting" would allow settings of the introit or communio in Adult Contemporary Pop style.
Let it be understood I do think Mr. Esguerra's idea is a good one. I just don't think it's allowed under the current instruction and I believe it's misleading to say that it is.