Posts

Posted on by Jeffrey Tucker

The Notitiae Responses Database

Steven van Roode drew my attention to a wonderful online database of Notitiae Responses that has appeared online. These had been previously very hard to find. It was nearly the case that you had to be a PhD student digging through the postconcilar archives to find them. Now they are available to anyone. They are interesting because, as the official journal of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship, they provide insight into the mind of the Church following the Second Vatican Council.

There are some interesting points in here, such as the claim from 1966: “News is sometimes spread around about an imminent reform of the Order of Mass or a definitive reform of the whole Mass, which lacks a serious foundation. The liturgical restoration needs many efforts and years of study.”

Hmmm.

But already by that time, major changes were taking place, many of them much welcome. The most striking from a musical point view concerned the singing of the propers of the Mass. This was strictly forbidden in read or Low Masses before the Council. The result, however inadvertent and despite the constant promotion of the High Mass, was that the Low Mass substituted vernacular hymns. This was a serious problem from the point of view of the liturgical movement.

And truly, this made no practical sense. If a choir is there and can sing the propers of the Mass, why would it forbidden to do so, and yet singing a vernacular hymn become a practice that was not only not forbidden but proliferated widely? Indeed, this was the origin of what is called “the four-hymn sandwich.” This was not a “Vatican II” institution; it had preconciliar origins. In anything, Vatican II attempted to universalize the sung Mass so that the problem of popular vernacular hymns would fade and be replaced by sung Masses based on ordinary chants, dialogue chants, and proper chants.

It is for this reason that we can find this striking shift in Notitiae 1966: “Whether in a read Mass one or another part of the Ordinary (the Kyrie, the Gloria, etc.) or of the Proper (e. g. the Gradual, the Communion antiphon) can be sung? Resp.: In the affirmative.”

This was a dramatic change that reflected the Council’s wishes that Gregorian chant have first place at Mass. This is in keeping with one of the priorities of the liturgical movement and the continuation of the effort to refine the rubrics to fulfill Pius X’s wishes that the Mass itself by the source of sung texts at Mass.

This document has not been added yet to the database, but consider Notitiae 5 from 1969:

Query: Many have inquired whether the rule still applies that appears in the Instruction on sacred music and the liturgy, 3 Sept. 1958, no. 33: “In low Masses religious songs of the people may be sung by the congregation, without prejudice, however, to the principle that they be entirely consistent with the particular parts of the Mass.”

Reply: That rule has been superseded. What must be sung is the Mass, its Ordinary and Proper, not “something,” no matter how consistent, that is imposed on the Mass. Because the liturgical service is one, it has only one countenance, one motif, one voice, the voice of the Church. To continue to replace the texts of the Mass being celebrated with motets that are reverent and devout, yet out of keeping with the Mass of the day (for example, the Lauda Sion on a saint’s feast) amounts to continuing an unacceptable ambiguity: it is to cheat the people. Liturgical song involves not mere melody, but words, text, thought, and the sentiments that the poetry and music contain. Thus texts must be those of the Mass, not others, and singing means singing the Mass not just singing at Mass. [Notitiae 5 (1969) 406.]

 This was the same year that the Novus Ordo Missae was promulgated. Here then, we can see the mind of the Church at work in a progressive way, fixing problems of the past and refining the structure toward the fulfillment of a hope of the ideal as versus the common practice.

It goes without saying that the problems became worse rather than better. This was no one’s official intention.

We are now living through yet another period of rule tightening in an attempt to bring about the sung Mass. Far more significant, however, are the publishing steps currently being take to actually make the sung Mass more possible and accessible. Truly, until a few weeks ago, there were very few resources even available to provide anything like a bridge from the current practice to the Graduale Romanum of option one.

Posted on by Revd Fr Christopher Smith

Just my $0.10 worth about the Translation of Cantus in the New Missal

Just had some thoughts, for what they are worth. While it is true that yes, cantus can be translated as song as well as chant, there are some observations to be made:

1. If I am correct, the rubrics and the GIRM will be printed in the MIssal for the first time in the new translation, with all of the post-Redemptionis Sacramentum adjustments. There were editorial comments in the last Sacramentary that approached rubrics, or at least so it seemed. (Before the Syllabus of Errors gets started on this point, please remember that I haven’t said an English OF in so long, I can’t remember, and I don’t have the book here to look at it.)

2. The changes in the Missal might mean that priests who have never read the red bits or the GIRM before (and they are legion) might just do so for the first time, or for the first time since 1970. That alone might get some thinking.

3. While it may seem that the last option is still an argument to allow hymns at Mass, I am not sure it really is, whether it is in the original Latin rubrics, or the new corrected English version. Why? In any translation, it i necessary to go back to the intention of the author when using that word. Now, I would be interested if anyone could go leafing through Bugnini’s Reform of the Liturgy, his apologia for the liturgical reform, and see if he had any intention of vernacular hymns replacing the propers. From what I remember from what I have read, the answer is no. Also, if Musicam Sacram is still the proper legislation for music in the Roman Rite, is cantus as used in that document referring to the Propers?

The REAL question is this: What is the mind of the Church about music at those times? I don’t think there is any indication in any official document that the mind of the Church was to use vernacular hymns when the Propers are called for. To argue that, because hymns are used by the People of God at Mass, that is the mind of the Church and it is as such expressed in the GIRM I find a little backwards. It seems to me that the use of vernacular hymns was tolerated in the German-speaking world. Toleration in the official documents does not mean that the Church desires it for her worship, at least not universally.

4. While it is clear that hymns at Mass and Low Mass have occurred and continue to occur throughout Church history, it also seems clear to me that the Church’s intention is to SING THE MASS (Ordinary, Responses and the Propers that are in the text of the Missal) and not to SING AT MASS (paraphrases of the Ordinary as in German and Spanish, and Hymns at Mass.)

Those who are derided as having an ideology to push the propers have a better argument that trying to legislate the Propers into existence everywhere. The argument is simple: SING THE MASS, DON’T SING AT MASS!

Posted on by Adam Bartlett

Reflections on the 2011 GIRM: Part I

This morning we have learned that there has been a new translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal for the dioceses of the United States. The new translation has superseded the previous 2003 translation, it takes effect immediately, and it will appear in printed editions of the Roman Missal this November.

In browsing briefly just a few sections of this new edition of the GIRM, it is clear that we have much to learn and consider as we prepare for the moment of liturgical renewal ahead of us this November. I have decided to dedicate a short series of reflections, then, on this new translation of the GIRM which will explore it in a few different lights.

First, I would like to consider the nature of translation in light of liturgical adaptation–otherwise known as inculturation.

“The first significant measure of inculturation is the translation of liturgical books into the language of the people.” (Varietates Legitimae, the fourth instruction for the right implementation of Sacrosanctum Concilium, 1994 [VL] §53)

The liturgical books of the Roman Rite are normatively promulgated in Latin. Translation of these into the vernacular is done according to the most basic form of inculturation as it was described in Sacrosanctum Concilium and in subsequent instructions. In this basic form of inculturation the Latin Typical Edition remains the normative source and holds the weight of UNIVERSAL LAW. When issues of translation arise, then, consulting the Latin text is often helpful for clarifying the Mind of the Church and the true sense of the text or rubric in question.

We are told in the newly released edition of the GIRM that there is now a “single official translation for the English-speaking world”, which includes 11 English speaking bishops conferences.

While this is a very wonderful aspiration for purposes of unity in the English-speaking world, this description is in a certain way untrue. There will not be a single English language GIRM for all English-speaking conferences. Each will in fact be unique in a few specific places.

What I am speaking of here are the more substantial adaptations (inculturations) of the General Instruction that have been made in each conference according to the competencies given in GIRM 390, which reads:

It is up to the Conferences of Bishops to decide on the adaptations indicated in this General Instruction and in the Order of Mass and, once their decisions have been accorded the recognitio of the Apostolic See, to introduce them into the Missal itself. These adaptations include

  • The gestures and posture of the faithful (cf. no. 43 above);
  • The gestures of veneration toward the altar and the Book of the Gospels (cf. no. 273 above);
  • The texts of the chants at the entrance, at the presentation of the gifts, and at Communion (cf. nos. 48, 74, 87 above);
  • The readings from Sacred Scripture to be used in special circumstances (cf. no. 362 above);
  • The form of the gesture of peace (cf. no. 82 above);
  • The manner of receiving Holy Communion (cf. nos. 160, 283 above);
  • The materials for the altar and sacred furnishings, especially the sacred vessels, and also the materials, form, and color of the liturgical vestments (cf. nos. 301, 326, 329, 339, 342-346 above).

Directories or pastoral instructions that the Conferences of Bishops judge useful may, with the prior recognitio of the Apostolic See, be included in the Roman Missal at an appropriate place.

The sections described above, then, have received liturgical adaptation in every bishops conference, and these adaptations, which have been absorbed into the GIRM in that locale, take the force of PARTICULAR LAW.

The Latin version of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, promulated in 2002 by John Paul II, is the universal edition of the Roman Rite and it takes the force of UNIVERSAL LAW.

According to the Code of Canon Law (§12) though, PARTICULAR laws “bind those for whom they were issued”, and thus they trump UNIVERSAL LAW in that region.

What this means is that in the places, listed above, where liturgical adaptations have been made to the GIRM by individual bishops conferences, these become unique to that particular jurisdiction, and their content TRUMPS the same content that is found in the Latin typical edition.

This has many implications. It is very good because it allows for particular instruction to be given according to the unique needs of a region. For example, we have seen in two cases so far a further clarification of language in GIRM 48 for two English speaking conferences: England and Wales, and the United States.

Particular law in the dioceses of England and Wales does not allow for the singing of “alius cantus … congruus” (another suitable song) and requires instead for the singing of either the proper chants of the official liturgical books, or “a song from another collection of psalms and antiphons”. The language used here is much more restrictive than the universal law contained in the Latin typical edition, but it is binding with the force of law in England and Wales since particular law trumps universal law.

We have a similar situation in the United states where the word “liturgical” has been added to “chant” in the adaptations made to GIRM 48 in the dioceses of the US.

“(4) another liturgical chant [may be sung] 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.”

The word “liturgical (liturgia)” is not to be found in the Latin typical edition (UNIVERSAL law) in paragraph 48. This one word has been added by the USCCB and has been approved by the Holy See and forms part of the PARTICULAR (binding) law in the United States.

One might ask why one single word is of any significance in this conversation. Some might feel that all of this legal conversation is completely unnecessary. But I believe that the addition of the word “liturgical” to the word “chant” in GIRM 48 does much to speak of the “ontology” of the processional chants of the Mass; that is, the nature of the processional chants. It clarifies the intention of these chants, and is descriptive of its proper role.

Discussion of the nature or ontology of the processional chants of the Mass, as described variously in the binding particular law of different English-speaking regions, will be considered in the next post in this series.

Posted on by Mr. C

J.T. Whatsitworth, It’s MY music, and I want it NOW!

Consider the lilies, the swallows…not even Solomon in all his glory was so adorned. (No quotes, just paraphrasing as I recall His words.)  The lilies and swallows that gave a joyful example to His disciples are long gone from Jesus’ day. Most of the images of the saints and sinners that adorn blogs have arrived to their reward or will do so at some point of time. This isn’t meant to be morbid in the slightest. We believers in Christ push on, whether dragging through the mud and waste or flying in concert with the Spirit, confident in faith that a “reward” does, indeed, await. I personally believe that there is a sublime reality that escapes our notice about one particular endeavor we enjoy from God’s bounty that also escapes death. Whether this re-creation is rewarded with a hellish posterity, an ignorant, interminable limbo, or received into glory,  I dunno. Of course, I’m speaking of music. “Optima musica Dei donum.”  I have had a great CMAA friend, Richard Chonak, provide two different perspectives, or translations of that: one being “Music is the greatest gift of God”; and two, “the finest music is God’s gift.”
 I’ve never further qualified either of those interpretations. It’s not “some music,” “my music,” “your music,” “our music” and most certainly not “God’s music.” He’s passed that. Who of us that has consciously put the muse to the pen or the recording device hasn’t secretly acknowledged that we were gifted to be the sharers, or “authors” of our tunes and harmonies from the one who created this aspect of the cosmos and spread it out upon the ether.
Here’s the point. I believe it’s basically a vanity and therefore pointless to use this gift as any form of tool or weapon to advance our truly heartfelt, informed and even righteous agendae and thus lambaste any and all perceived adversaries to our self-proclaimed truths in an effort to (what?) simply prevail upon others. And doing so seems to me a remarkably counterproductive waste of time (that which is also a gift) if we are to be fully invested in evangelizing our neighbors and strangers to the whole of the Gospels. To be clear, I have no reluctance towards sharing the bounty of our Catholic Church’s wise counsel that, at worship, we are inheritors and benefit from the unique and mysterious charms and priceless treasure that are revealed in chant, polyphony and other truly sacred forms of music.
On the other hand, if we cannot in good conscience deny that God is the sole author of grace and operates in His time and wisdom, then should any soul in pain, doubt and darkness who cries out for solace, reconciliation and forgiveness, and salvation have those prayers rejected by God’s ordained ministers? “It’s about the sacraments, silly!” (To paraphrase President Clinton in irony.) But, if that same soul is hanging by a thread to the Christian life and asks for a sip of water that musically is known as “Be not afraid,” who are we to deny that? Are we to declare to that pleading soul, “Why sure, sinner-man, as long as it’s chanted and in Latin, ‘you down with “Nolite timere?”

I want my cantus, and I want it NOW!

  Well, the way I see it going down at least for another four decades of wandering is that great strides will be made towards restoring solemnity and dignity to the performance of the Ordinary Form of the Roman Rite Mass as sung in the vernaculars. But they will continue to be sung in the vernaculars by and large. And bar the highly unlikely scenario of an official reckoning with the IGRM/GIRM that makes option four as clear as crystal, proper texts will continue on their path, through the efficacy of our labors,  to be utilized as their appropriate roles at the processionals, graduals, alleluia/tracts/sequences more pervasively and hopefully persuasively. That said, I cannot predict that will ever come about at the expense of the use of strophic hymnody (as opposed to liturgical hymnody) and religious song whose paraphrased textual source may align to the proper calendar, as well as the vast body of both poetical and scriptural allusion lyrics. These latter forms, Frankenstein-monster-spawn of the Freemason Bugnini or not, have been taken up by more than one undisciplined, laconic and spiritually-undernourished generation. And they now own these songs and a great many of the hymns that they “get.” And some of us chant TRUE BELIEVERS that want our Quick Remedy Wagon surplus bought en masse right now by the undernourished PIPs are prone to that time-honored curial penchant for forked-tongue-ed rhetoric, “you can have your cake and eat it too,”  in our spiels and appeals.

Of course the people are to sing their appointed portions of the liturgy, as long as they’re those of the chanted Latin settings appropriate to the seasons and occasions (huh?). But if you can’t master much more than the Death Mass in Latin or even English, don’t worry, we, THE SCHOLA, will cover for ya, no problem. You just listen real hard, contemplate, watch and pray. And now that you know those bold fonted thingy’s called antiphons in the missalettes actually mean something, just trust us that they’re more attuned to the scriptural lessons than all that sacropop syrup those hippies have spoon fed you, and we’ll sing them real purdy, and not just at the “gathering, preparation and feasting” parts, but we’ll sing them ourselves between the readings and dazzle ourselves with our florid gymnastics that will make Christina Aguilera even more embarrassed and jealous of her obvious lack of ornamental skills. But wait, what? You want to take part too? Watch and pray isn’t working for you? Okay, then, we can do that. Here, we’ve got tons of vernacular chant propers and ordinaries that are “Lite,” you’ll get the hang of ‘em real soon. But wait, what? No, you can’t sing “On Eagles’ Wings” ever again. Here, I’ve got a 400 word treatise on why it doesn’t even qualify as an “alius cantus aptus,” so there! But wait, what’s an “alius cantus aptus?” Well, look it up ‘cause I’m done with schooling you all, and “Beagles’ Wings” ain’t one of ‘em in any case. Trust me! I mean it, TRUST ME!

I think I’ve exhausted the point. Make no mistake about it or me. If I could attend a solemn Latin High Mass in EF every day, that’s how I’d worship. You heard it here by these lips, “Ed Schaefer was right.” (Look it up.) Some of us eventually have to make a hard and fast choice. But equating our choice with imposing same upon others isn’t good medicine for all like cod liver or castor oil. It is more akin to the cliche about teaching the pig to sing. But guess which of the two protagonists in that cliche is more pig headed? Slow and steady as she goes, hope and pray and nourish the poor and teach them to swim in waters that are moving and not in pools. But don’t expect them to do a swan dive off a high cliff right behind you because you can come up and breathe afterwards to applause (which is, of course, meant to be no applause.)

Get accustomed to the Big Tent having more than one ring in the circus maximus for a few more decades, my friends.
I’m just sayin’….



Posted on by Mr. C

Playing “Weekend Update” with “cantus”

As I’m having difficulty posting commentary beyond ten words in our own comboxes here of late, I thought that it might be worth noting the loyal opposition’s stance, in their own words abetted by a USCCB official, regarding the interpretation and translation of “cantus” apropos of Jeffrey’s two prior articles here.
Note- all font adjustments/colors are mine.
(Warming up my Johnny Mathis croon, to deflect any possible contentiousness towards meself)
chances are that despite a few entreaties by TF here and JH over at PTB, and a sort of companion “I see both sides of the issue” take offered at PT by Dr. Paul Ford, the POV of PTB won’t see much light of day in certain quarters. Hence I provide a snippet of Frere Ruff’s article from his own site, the article title: “No.Big.Deal.”

What is a cantus? Literally, as the past participle of canere, it is anything which is sung. How do you translate cantus in this context – “hymn,” “song,” “piece”? All could be defended. The tendency now, as we know, is to use Latinate cognates, as in the English word “chant” which derives from “cantus.” (Think calix, “chalice.”) But whatever translation you use, it still means “the piece which is sung.” And that could be “Ad te levavi,” or it could be “O Come, O Come, Emmanuel.”
I just emailed Fr. Rick Hilgartner at the Bishops’ Committee for Divine Worship about this. My question and his response:
AWR: Rick, does the fourth option for the entrance chant in GIRM 48 still refer to an appropriate hymn or song chosen by local liturgical planners?
RH:Yes.
Fr. Hilgartner also noted that, in his understanding, the paragraph is about the text to be sung, not the musical form it takes. The point is that the prescribed antiphons can, and perhaps should, influence the choice of hymnody. An example (from him) is using the hymn “The King of Love My Shepherd Is” if the entrance antiphon is from Psalm 23.
My advice to would-be interpreters: First, check out all the ways cantus has been used in the papal documents of the 20th century on sacred music, especially to refer to popular congregational songs of various nations and peoples. Second, check out the history of indults allowing such songs to replace Latin propers, how this made its way into Musicam sacram no. 32 (“The custom…widely confirmed by indults, of substituting other songs for the songs in the Graduale…”,) and how this prehistory informs GIRM 48.
awr

So, now that I, your helpful member of the kitchen cabinet of liturgy, have cross-fertilized the conversations (or in the vernacular, “stunk up the joint!) do carry on with deliberations.
I hope we can avoid using words like “fraud” without quotation marks in these talks.