Thanks Chris Mueller, who is the composer of the what is easily the most widely acclaimed polyphonic setting of the new texts.
Authentic Liturgy and Chant: Some Considerations
The noted liturgical and musical commentator Paul Ford has written a thought-provoking article for the GIA Quarterly that you can find here. Professor Ford is an admirable interlocutor in the current debates about liturgy and music, and, as such, he has much that we can admire in this article. Because he makes reference to “the thoughtful proposals” by members of the Church Music Association of America on the concept of mutual enrichment between the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite, I would like to engage some of what he has written in his article, to keep this fruitful dialogue going. I am very grateful to Professor Ford for having taken note of these proposals, as well as for his accurate re-presentation of them in his article.
At the outset of his article, Ford writes, “Nothing in the Holy Father’s official teaching ought to be construed as anything other than (1) affirmations of the essential truth and goodness of the postconciliar liturgical reforms and (2) reminders about some dimensions of this reform that need more attention (particularly, sacrality and beauty).” In the accompanying footnote, he refers to three examples of this teaching: the encyclical Deus Caritas est, the apostolic exhortation Sacramentum caritatis and the motu proprio Summorum pontificum. He then goes on to describe, via commentary on a quote of Fr Anthony Ruff, the intention of Pope Benedict XVI for the Ordinary and Extraordinary Forms of the Roman Rite to be mutually enriching. He then states that the Ordinary Missal of the Roman Rite is the Missal of Paul VI.
Yet he then goes on to say, “The personal preferences of the Holy Father are just that: personal preferences.” Are we to conclude that, because Pope Benedict XVI chose to propose two forms of the same Roman Rite and encourage their mutual enrichment by way of a motu proprio, that this is merely the Pope’s personal preference? Also, if the document is evidenced as not construable as anything other than “(1) affirmations of the essential truth and goodness of the postconciliar liturgical reforms and (2) reminders about some dimensions of this reform that need more attention (particularly, sacrality and beauty)”, why is that in the realm of both official papal teaching and personal preference at one and the same time? Need the two contradict one another?
No one would suggest that all forms of paper that come out of the Vatican are worthy of the same assent. But is a motu proprio issued by the Pope’s personal initiative by that very fact only an indication of a personal preference, and on that basis can be ignored or minimized? The fact that the Missal of Paul VI is the ordinary Missal of the Roman Rite, a fact that Summorum underlines, does not detract from the fact that the Pope as Supreme Legislator of the Church has made a decision that the Roman Rite has two forms, and both are to be respected. It is hard to see how that is a personal preference.
Dr Ford does notice, however, that “revisiting the wide options” in the General Instruction for music would allow for the use “of the traditional music of the Roman Rite.” He also notes that “[m]any of us are still singing only modifications of the four-hymn sandwich of the late 1950s, singing at Mass rather than singing the Mass.” Here, in fact, is a powerful indication of continuity: the music of the Extraordinary Form can easily be used in the Ordinary Form, an indication of mutual enrichment. And may Dr Ford preach that truth from the rooftops! Sing the Mass, don’t sing at Mass!
But it seems that, for Dr Ford, mutual enrichment from the EF to the OF ends there. In fact, as he insists that the ordinary form of the Roman Rite is the Missal of Paul VI, he seems to take for granted that the point of departure for any discussion on liturgy and music must be the Missal of Paul VI because it is the Ordinary Form. His later observations on how certain aspects of the EF are incompatible with the OF are drawn from that fundamental premise.
But Pope Benedict XVI has introduced two notions into the liturgical discussion which make me think that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is not actually the point of departure for these discussions at all. The concept of the hermeneutic of continuity, which has been a theme of this pontificate, stresses the fundamental unity across both rites. Also the concept of liturgical pluralism and the equality of rites, introduced in SP, also stresses their fundamental unity. Therefore, any discussion about the liturgy and music of the Roman Rite must have as its point of departure the Roman Rite as a whole, Ordinary and Extraordinary, seen in a continnum insofar as possible. Even more than that, the point of departure is not the General Instruction of the Roman Missal of Paul VI, but the answers to the more basic questions about liturgy, music and the life of the Church, as well as the shared and sharable patrimony of the Roman Rite.
For Dr Ford, the evaluation of the EF’s place in the Church has to be seen against the backdrop of “the common spiritual good of the People of God.” For him this notion has come to us in part because of what he identifies as three “seismic shifts in sacramental theology that began in 1903.” He names them as “the active participation of the all the priestly people of God, the primacy of the word of God, and liturgy as the work of the Holy Spirit.” For devotes the next part of his article to an analysis of how the EF shores up against those three themes.
First of all, I would like to point out that, theologically at least, those three themes so dear to the classical liturgical movement (and the new) have their remoter origins in German Romanticism long before 1903. The sacramental understanding of the Church that Scheeben would popularize in the nineteenth century would take root in theology and become very fruitful around the time of Vatican II in Magisterial documents. I am not sure why Ford insists in 1903 (St Pius X’s motu proprio on sacred music, perhaps?) as a watershed date. I would like to read more about what Dr Ford thinks about this connection, because it does seem like the first time such a theology erupts into the Magisterium, unless I am mistaken.
For Ford, the fact that the EF uses terms “assembly/congregation/faithful people” only 30 times and the OF over 500 demonstrates that the EF cannot be a vehicle of the active participation of the priestly people of God. For him, the EF seems to represent an impoverished ecclesiology. But were the divines of the classical Liturgical Movement and many theologians before Vatican II not also convinced of this ecclesiological truth and ready to make it practical in the lives of the faithful, far earlier than the 1969 GIRM? If the active participation of the priestly people of God is a theological truth, then is it not true no matter what rubrics accompany the text of the Mass? Does the proliferation of certain words necessarily indicate more clearly this truth? How then can one explain those who do not actively participate in the OF and are not aware of the dignity of their baptismal priesthood? Also, has Ford analyzed the use of those terms in the Eastern Rites? Does their presence, frequence or absence somehow indicate a false or impoverished ecclesiology?
Dr Ford also faults the EF, whose last legal incarnation was 1962, for not including paragraphs 3 and 4 from the 1981 Lectionary for Mass: Introduction. Yet, why are these paragraphs, which speak eloquently of the foundation of liturgical celebration on the Word of God, not applicable to the EF? Is the Word of God, which is “a living and effective word through the power of the Holy Spirit” somehow blocked in the EF? Can the Holy Spirit not work through the readings at an EF Mass?
It must be noted that here we seem to reduce the Word of God to the Holy Scriptures. But, as Dei Verbum 10 reminds us, “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church.” The Word cannot be reduced merely to the readings at Mass. The primacy of the Word refers, not only to the liturgical proclamation of the readings of Scripture, but to the Church’s reception as Ecclesia discens of Revelation through Scripture and Tradition. Why does a rich theological conception of the Word of God illuminate the EF as deficient?
Ford gives us a clue why he thinks so. After he opines that the introits of the Graduale Romanum might be kept in the OF because they do not violate his conception of the Word in worship, and that the occasional Kyrie and Agnus Dei could also be sung in their original languages, he proposes that we “consider surrendering all the graduals, alleluias, tracts, offertories . . . and the communions of Ordinary Time that evidence no connection to . . . any of the readings proclaimed.”
It must be noted that the music of the OF as expressed in the Graduale Romanum forms a unity with the old Roman lectionary cycle, as well as the proper orations of the Masses. The recent editions of the Graduale try to keep as much of this system intact as possible, but in such a form as to be coherent with the OF liturgical year. Many of those antiphons indeed seem to have little to do with the readings of the OF. In fact, at first glance, some may seem to have little to do with the Readings of the EF as well. Since Ford takes the OF as his point of departure, this discrepancy leads him to conclude that the entire Graduale must be overhauled to be more consistent with the OF.
There are several observations to be made. First, the current editors of the Graduale have taken the EF as their point of departure, and not the OF. Second, the option to do either the continuous readings or the sanctoral cycle of readings in the OF also leads to some interesting juxtapositions of antiphons, readings and proper orations, so such discrepancy is not alien to the OF. Third, how can the reduction of the entire Graduale into a book of Introits fulfill the express wish of Vatican II for the preservation of Latin and Gregorian chant? Fourth, now that Pope Benedict XVI has introduced a notion by which the Roman Rite considered in its fundamental unity must be the departure point for discussion on liturgy and music, should that, and not the EF or OF, be the standard by which future editions of the Graduale be revised?
Ford argues that the Creed “must be in the vernacular”, but why? Surely, if the Creed is a statement of the unity of our faith, why is it so inconceivable that the Roman Rite in both forms uses it in Latin? Would that not better underscore the unity of the faith, and would it not allow people from various languages to all participate in a powerful moment of unity in the Mass when repeating the words of the belief which unites them beyond words? He furthermore argues that the addition of three acclamations after the Institution Narrative means that the Sanctus, as another acclamation, ought to be sung in the vernacular. First of all, liturgical historians are not at all unified as to whether the Sanctus was always envisioned as an acclamation in the same way the acclamations inside of the Eucharistic Prayers of the OF are now considered. This is another instance of using the OF as a point of departure and not the substantial unity of the Roman Rite. Second, if we jettison the greater part of the Latin Ordinary and almost the whole of the Graduale, as Ford suggests, how can we then fulfill the desire of the binding legislation of the Roman Rite on music, Musicam Sacram 47, “Pastors of souls should take care that besides the vernacular “the faithful also know how to say or sing, in Latin also, those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”
For Ford, the reason is very clear: it’s not in the vernacular: “The very meaning of the Incarnation is the vernacular.” Does this mean that the Incarnation is deprived of meaning for people if they actively participate in the Mass by singing in Latin in communion with the Church that is the extension of the Incarnate Word in the world? For Ford, “since today’s lectionary is a vernacular lectionary, today’s music between the readings must be almost always in the vernacular.” Yet, the Missal and the Lectionary are, in their typical editions, in Latin. The vernacular is a permission granted for the good of the faithful by Sacrosanctum concilium, not the absolute form of the liturgy. Ford’s point of departure is not even from the text of the GIRM of the OF, but from the actual practice in many places, without verifying if that practice is in accord with the Church’s Magisterial teaching or law. Yet he still envisions that some of that music may not be in the vernacular, without specifying where or how, but most importantly, why.
Ford also re-produces the well-known statistics about the relative amounts of the Scripture contained in the OF and the EF. Several comments can be made. First, the lectionary of the EF developed historically as it did for all sorts of reasons, and was neither accidental nor invented in a liturgical laboratory by experts. The cycle of Mass readings must be seen in unity with the Divine Office and other liturgical rites as well. The Roman lectionary developed in tandem with the Office at a time when the Office was part of the normative experience of the Christian more than it is today. The riches of the EF lectionary consist, not in quantity, but in the way they, along with the other Scriptures contained in other liturgical rites, developed along with the history of the Roman Church. Salvaging that precious treasure and offering to the faithful as part of the patrimony of every Catholic is one of the most beautiful consequences of SP, and one not appreciated nearly enough. Second, the mere exposure to larger amounts of Scripture, like the mere exposure to larger amounts of prayer, does not necessarily translate into comprehension. Has it been verified that Catholics are really more conversant with Scripture than they were 40 years ago? In what does that biblical literacy consist and how can we evaluate it? The expansion of biblical literacy in the Church is a noble mission, part of her essence to evangelize. But is it the burden of the Mass alone to carry that? Or are there other factors, notably catechesis and preaching? Is it really true that exposure to the full riches of the EF, Mass and Office, is still an obstacle to the Word of God taking root in individuals and the Church? Are there also no pedagogical merits at all to a lectionary cycle which breaks down and digests frequently repeated passages of Scripture? Also, are these statistical totals taken merely from the Epistle and Gospel readings, or from the totality of Scripture which surrounds the Mass and Office?
The EF Mass is also deficient in pneumatology, compared to the OF, Ford claims. Eastern Orthodox controversialists have condemned both the EF and the OF as being insufficient in pneumatological content compared with Eastern liturgies. And many notable theologians, such as Yves Congar, have opined on the historical reasons and practical consequences of the relative lack of engagement of the Holy Spirit by the Church in ther life and prayer. Yet no one has asked, Why has the Roman Rite developed this way? Many contemporary commentators are content to assume that, because the West has historically been so pneumatologically discreet, the Western liturgy is deficient. But is the action of the Spirit limited to epicletical formulae in the Mass? Can the Holy Spirit not act independently of the absence, inference or dispersion of epicletical formulae just as the consecration of the Eucharistic elements is held to be obtained in the consecratory formula of the Prayer of Addai and Mari, where the consecratory formula could be considered absent, inferred or dispersed?
Dr Ford seems to indicate that for Professor Mahrt, Dr Schaefer and I in our various articles on mutual enrichment of the two forms of the Roman Rite, it “is almost all one way.” I cannot answer for Mahrt or Schaefer. As for me, I contend that, in reality, mutual enrichment cannot be from point A to point B, whether it be from EF to OF or OF to EF, although in my article to which Ford refers, I delineate practical ways in which the liturgy could go from point A to B. I argue that mutual enrichment should not take as its point of departure A or B, the EF or the OF.
Viewing the two forms of the Roman Rite under the principle of the hermeneutic of continuity, the point of departure for discussions about mutual enrichment must go back to a basic: How is what the Church does in her public prayer incarnate in the rites and music as developed through time in the Roman Rite? The answer to that question does not begin by looking at the relative riches or poverty of one rite or another, at how one historical incarnation of the rite is like or unlike a subsequent or previous theological development, or even the utility of the faithful’s comprehension of the rites themselves.
Ford is right to maintain, “The pastoral effectiveness of a celebration will be greatly increased if the texts . . . corresponds as closely as possible to the needs, spiritual preparation, and culture of those taking part.” When considering how the two forms may enrich each other, it is insufficient to say that they can’t, and that the hope that they can is just a personal preference of the Holy Father. We can say, however, that the Holy Father has seen that the Church must find a way for the liturgy to be able once again to meet the basic needs of her people. The task of pastors, liturgists and musicians is to elevate the culture of the Church’s children by a spiritual preparation which can allow them to encounter the Mystery which is encountered in any form of liturgical rite. We need not change the liturgy as the Church hands its various forms down to us, but open the riches of all liturgical forms to that priestly people who hunger and thirst after Truth.
Paul Ford vs. William Mahrt!
Paul Ford has an interesting piece in the GIA Quarterly, one that considers the role of chant in the postconciliar liturgy. He takes on the views of William Mahrt as presented in Sacred Music, judging Mahrt to put too much of a premium on beauty in music and not enough on the word as expressed in song.
Dr. Ford’s opinions always surprise me; he is a difficult thinker to categorize. His critique of Mahrt is civil and thoughtful. I think I can anticipate Mahrt’s response, but let’s all wait to see.
The Issue Is Not High or Low Church
 |
| Inmates attend Mass in a Florida prison |
I found myself on the phone yesterday with a reporter from a national news outlet. Assigned a story on the rise of chant, he was trying to come to terms with the Catholic music situation today. As the conversation proceeded, I began to get an inkling of his own understandings and biases that need to be addressed.
In this case, I think he hit on a confusion that might be more common than we think. He had an idea that the current struggle for the future of Catholic music could be divided into the camps of high and low church.
This is emphatically not the case.
The traditional distinction between “high church” and “low church” approaches to worship has long been a feature of debates within protestantism — or, more specifically, debates within Anglicanism.
In the broadest terms – and there are many permutations of this – the group that is “high church’ favors classical music, formality in dress and posture, strict poses and sermons, lots of accouterments, and a throne-and-altar approach to politics.
The “low church” group de-emphasizes finery and postures, embraces a more common aesthetic, employs simpler and more accessible musical styles, has a more open attitude toward other denominations, and favors a democratic and egalitarian approach to politics.
So far as I can tell, this division has absolutely nothing to do with the current Catholic situation. Or rather, to the extent that this does describe the current division over Catholic liturgy, it is yet another demonstration that something has gone profoundly wrong.
Class differences in worship styles are inevitable and normal but they need not be a fixed part of the Catholic landscape. They are certainly not intrinsic features of the ritual. There is one Roman Rite in two forms and these are suitable for all peoples of all classes. And the same is true of the music and of liturgical aesthetics generally.
Picture a lone priest saying Mass in a small hut in missionary territory on a remote mountain in Ecuador. There are only a few people there. The hut has a dirt floor and a grass roof that leaks. Bugs are everywhere. There is no electricity. He says Mass quietly Latin, ad orientem. The sound you hear mostly is from the outside. Otherwise it is quiet.
Now try to evaluate with the Anglican-style categories. Is this “high church” or “low church?” The divisions don’t make any sense really. If the celebrant follows the Missal, it doesn’t matter where it is or who is there. It is the same Mass whether it is said in a prison cell or in Chartes. Most Catholics thoroughly understand this point.
Now let’s just consider the chants in the forthcoming Roman Missal, because that seems to be the main topic of musical discussion these days. Many Cathedral music programs with full-time choirs and even orchestras could vastly improve their music programs (by “improve” I mean sound more Catholic and be more true to the Roman Rite) by simply adopting these chants as the primary music of the church.
High or low, pop music remains pop music even after it is gussied up with tympani, brass, and an 80-voice choir. It is still unsatisfying. It is still not liturgical music. It does not improve the ritual.
And yet that is precisely what we encounter in many Cathedrals and large parishes. I’ve sat through many of these displays and rather than come across as majestic and mighty, the liturgy simply seems extravagant and even profligate. These occasions are no more true to the Roman Rite than the country parish outside of town that has three volunteer singers singing chant and nothing else.
At once recent Cathedral event I attended — the sounds and pageantry were over the top — I was thinking this in my head: “after spending some $20,000 on this one event, they still couldn’t mange to sing one proper in English or Latin from the actual liturgical books!”
In a similar way, there is nothing to prevent the smallest parish with no resources from singing all the chants of the Roman Gradual – and spend no money doing it. The results that could be obtained in this liturgical environment would be far better than any misguided Cathedral program no matter how much money it spent. In the Roman Rite, there really are no class distinctions. The only differences come down to whether the liturgy is being true to itself or not.
Liturgical music or non-liturgical music: this is the great divide. Liturgical music is neither high nor low. It either is or it isn’t.
The reporter then asked me to define what I meant by liturgical music. Now, keep in mind that it is hard to keep a reporter’s attention and too much theory is going to land on the cutting-room floor in any case. So I have to boil this down in a way that the reporter can follow but also accurately makes sense of the current debate and the current situation.
So here is what I said.
Theological considerations aside, liturgical music has three very practical and easily recognizable signs.
First, liturgical music uses the liturgical text. The official books provide the text to take up the entire liturgical action from the entrance to the offertory to the communion. These texts change week to week and are called the propers of the Mass. The same is true for the texts that remain in place week to week. This is called the ordinary of the Mass. If you are singing these, you are singing the liturgy. If you are not, you are doing something else.
Second, liturgical music is primarily vocal music. This means that the singing itself is the core of the musical activity. That doesn’t rule out accompaniment but other instruments must always be the servant of the voice in liturgical actions such as processions. Instrumental solos are fine and even wonderful but they are not technically part of the liturgical framework. Nor are they necessary at all. What is necessary and sufficient for liturgical music is the human voice.
Third, liturgical music is primarily and at its root plainsong and not strictly metered. This is because plainsong is the musical structure that best accommodates the word as it appears in prose in the liturgy. The Psalms have no strict meter. The Gospels have no strict meter. The word of the Missal have no strict meter. Plainsong is the vessel that best permits these texts to be declaimed. That doesn’t mean that strict musical meters are ruled out but the foundational music will also be un-metered plainsong. This can be unison or choral but it must be flexible, so that the music serves the word rather than the other way around.
I think back fondly to when I used to attend Mass at the National Shrine in Washington, D.C. Back then, there was the upper church where the big choirs sang and the orchestras did their thing, which was mostly to perform super-souped up versions of conventional parish fare. (This is no longer true, thanks to wonderful musical leadership at the Shrine.)
Then there was the lower crypt with Mass in Latin sung by the priest and the single cantor, attended mostly by non-English speakers from all over the world, some of whom entered the nave on their knees saying the Rosary.
In the crypt Mass, the entire Mass was sung in chant and everyone sang. In the upper church, there was no chant, propers were replaced by hymns, and hardly anyone sang. Which is high and which is low? Which constitutes the fullest expression of the Roman Rite?
You see how the Catholic experience defies conventional categories? The point made by the chants of the new Missal is that you don’t need social status, lots of money, the right clothes, and conservatory-trained musicians to achieve the ideal. The Roman Rite belongs to everyone. We only need the will and desire to let it speak and sing for itself.
What We Profess, by Msgr. Richard Schular
This moving editorial by Msgr. Richard Schuler appeared in the Fall 1975 issue of Sacred Music. These were obviously dark times, and in such times, people become lost and confused. But Msgr. Schuler was a visionary. He could see the light when no one else could, and he knew how to get there. This statement was crafted to provide that clarity of purpose and the road map forward.
With a change of editors it is perhaps a good time to restate the policy of Sacred Music as a journal dedicated to fostering the liturgy and music of the Church in accord with the authentic decrees emanating from the proper ecclesiastical authorities. The policy of Sacred Music cannot be described by the words conservative or liberal. Rather it is Catholic — Roman Catholic — bound to the directions given by the Church. Nor can it be called traditionalist or progressivist, since it upholds the directives of the Second Vatican Council that the traditions of the past are to be maintained and fostered at the same time that new directions and styles are encouraged. Nor is it committed to the old and not the new, or the new and not the old in music.
In primacy of place always we put the Gregorian chant as it has been ordered by the council and re-issued in the latest Roman chant books. Likewise according to the direction of the council, we value and foster the polyphonic developments in music through the thousand years that the Roman Missa cantata has been the focus of great musical composition, both in the a cappella tradition and with organ and orchestral accompaniment. We heartily encourage the singing of our congregations as the council demands, but we just as energetically promote the activities of choirs as the council also ordered. Finally, as men of our own century, we welcome the great privilege extended by the Vatican Council for the use of the vernacular languages in the liturgy along side the Latin, and so we encourage the composition of true liturgical music in our own day in both Latin and the vernacular.
We see no necessary conflict between Latin and English, between the congregation and the choir, between new and old music; there cannot be, since the council has provided for both.Knowledge of what the Church wishes and has decreed, both in the council and in the documents that have followed its close, is of the utmost importance to both composers and performers, to musicians and to the clergy. So much of the unhappy state of liturgy and sacred music in our day has come from a misunderstanding of what the Church in her authentic documents has ordered. Too much erroneous opinion, propaganda and even manipulation have been evident, bringing about a condition far different from that intended by the council fathers in their liturgical and musical reforms. Sacred Music will continue to publish and to repeat the authentic wishes of the Church, since the regulation of the liturgy (and music is an integral part of liturgy) belongs to the Holy See and
to the bishops according to their role. No one else, not even a priest, can change liturgical rules or introduce innovations according to his own whims.But beyond the positive directions of the Church for the proper implementation of her liturgy, there remains always the area of art where the competent musician can exercise his trained judgment and express his artistic opinions. While the Church gives us rules pertaining to the liturgical action, the determining of fittingness, style and beauty belongs to the realm of the artist, truly talented, inspired and properly trained. Pope Paul himself made a very useful distinction on April 15, 1971, when he addressed a thousand Religious who had participated in a convention of the Italian Society of Saint Caecilia in Rome. The Holy Father insisted that only “sacred” music may be used in God’s temple, but not all music that might be termed “sacred” is fitting and worthy of that temple.
Thus, while nothing profane must be brought into the service of the liturgy, just as truly nothing lacking in true art may be used either.
To learn the decrees of the Church in matters of sacred music is not sufficient. Education in art — whether it be in music, architecture, painting or ceremonial — is also necessary. For the composer talent alone is not sufficient; he must also have inspiration rooted in faith and a sound training of his talents. When any one of these qualities is missing, true art is not forthcoming. So also the performer, in proportion to his role, must possess talent, training and inspiration.
A quarterly journal can never attempt to supply these requirements for true musicianship. It can only hope to direct and encourage the church musician who must possess his talents from his Creator, his training from a good school of music, and his inspiration in faith from God’s grace given him through Catholic living. But through reading these pages, information on what is being accomplished throughout the Catholic world, directions from proper authorities, news of books and compositions can serve as an aid to all associated with the celebration of the sacred liturgy.
Sing the Liturgy of the Hours
One of the most remarkable tools for typesetting chant now available is Gregorio. It produces beautiful and stable editions of chant that can draw on previously written code, and that code can be shared across networks and customized using software tools. The advantage of this approach is that the corpus of chant does not stay frozen on a single machine or with a single user but rather can built a bit at a time over years and across the globe.
Gregorio users, in other words, have learned to crowd source their projects, and their efforts build cumulatively over time, just like any open source software project. This provides benefits to individuals users and to the entire class of users, not just for one project but for all projects many years into the future. It is just inconceivable that this would be possible under the old model of individualized proprietary code development.
Some tools are being worked on now to make it even easier to use Gregorio for producing chant manuscripts. I’ve seen one of these recently and I was just amazed at its power (it will be made public within the next six months). Once again, these efforts are taking advantage of the open-source environment to draw on software and musical talents that are decentralized and diffused through the world. Many hands make light work, as they say.
Steven van Roode is the undisputed champion of Gregorio. He typeset the Simple English Propers, among many other liturgy sheets for groups around the world. He now has more projects than he can handle, which is a great thing.
His free site for singing the liturgy of the hours is where you can find files for the entire liturgical year. It is a wonderful gift to the Church.
There is some irony associated with how the most modern, most advanced tools are being used to create the futuristic manuscript prototypes of the oldest form of music that still profitably employs a medieval system of notation. Stunning.